Song Exchange in Roman Pastoral 3110227061, 9783110227062

Citation preview

Evangelos Karakasis Song Exchange in Roman Pastoral

Trends in Classics Supplementary Volumes Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabe´ · Margarethe Billerbeck · Claude Calame Philip R. Hardie · Stephen J. Harrison · Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter · Christina Kraus · Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy · Theodore D. Papanghelis · Giusto Picone Kurt Raaflaub · Bernhard Zimmermann

Volume 5

De Gruyter

Song Exchange in Roman Pastoral by

Evangelos Karakasis

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-022706-2 e-ISBN 978-3-11-022707-9 ISSN 1868-4785 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Karakasis, Evangelos. Song exchange in Roman pastoral / by Evangelos Karakasis. p. cm. - (Trends in classics. Supplementary volumes ; v. 5) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-022706-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN 978-3-11-022707-9 (e-book) 1. Pastoral poetry, Latin - History and criticism. 2. Pastoral poetry, Greek - History and criticism. 3. Virgil. Bucolica. I. Title. PA6804.B7K37 2011 8721.01-dc22 2010003068

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

To my mother and in loving memory of my father

Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest thanks to the friends and colleagues who have read drafts of the present work and helped me enormously to shape my ideas on the ‘generic identity’ of pastoral amoebaean eclogues; first of all I want to acknowledge the significant help of Prof. T. D. Papanghelis – Professor of Latin Literature at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and warmly thank him for having read through several earlier versions of the present book. Both his extremely valuable criticism and his insightful comments made me reconsider several points and offered me the appropriate stimulus for further thought. It also gives me great pleasure to thank Dr. Ioanna Manolessou – Academy of Athens for the trouble she took in reading the entire book and her critical and intellectual support. I am also indebted to Prof. R. L. Hunter – my former PhD supervisor, Regius Professor of Greek at the University of Cambridge, Dr. Thalia Papadopoulou – Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Dr. Demetra Koukouzika – Democritus University of Thrace both for their encouragement and their challenging comments on individual chapters of this study. My warmest thanks also go to the two referees of the series – Trends in Classics / Supplementary Volumes for their invaluable feedback and inspiring critique. Last but not least, I am extremely grateful to Prof. A. Rengakos – Professor of Greek at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His constant scholarly assistance and moral support, his kindness to guide me through various problems, his interest in including the present book in the Trends in Classics series, as well as his significant contribution in making the Department of Classics at the University of Thessaloniki a research community for which one would be felix pariter studioque locoque make him worthy of many special thanks.

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Methodological Remarks: ‘Bucolic’ or ‘Pastoral’ Genre . . . . . Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre . . . . . . . . . Post-Theocritean Bucolics: The Continuation of a Genre . . . Vergil vs. Pre-Vergilian Pastoral: The Construction of the Roman Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language and Style / the Term Callimachean – Neoteric: Methodological Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aims of the Present Study: Defining Pastoral Song Exchange

1 11 20

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

54

‘Unpastoral Dispositions’ and Neoteric Defects . . . . . . . . . . . Frigidity of Style and Character: Winter Imagery and t¹ xuwq¹m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gods, Goddesses and Daphnis the Referee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neoteric Language and Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

26 35 50 51

62 66 72 85

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue . . 87 The Cups and the Ecphrasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Bickering Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Poetic Contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The ‘Unfriendly Landscape’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eros … Continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Last but not Least: the Puzzling Riddles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The End of the Singing Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88 95 111 112 117 119 120 122 124

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 The Dedication Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 The Narrative Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

X

Contents

Damon’s Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Alphesiboeus’ Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 ‘An Epitome of Generic History’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Framing Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mopsus’ Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Menalcas’ Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poetic Initiation Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

153 154 157 168 179 182 183

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue . . . . . . . . 184 The Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Song Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linguistic Characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185 194 207 211

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language in Calpurnius Siculus’ Amoebaean Songs – Calp. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 The Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Singing Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The draw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linguistic Realism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

214 221 235 237 238

Pastoral Backgrounds – ‘Unpastoral’ Foregrounds: The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 The Introductory Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Song Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diction and ‘Generic Novelty’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

240 259 275 278

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 The Introductory Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Contents

XI

Ladas’ Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Thamyras’ Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 The Narrative Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idas’ Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcon’s Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

298 303 313 319

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue . . . . . . . . . 321 The Narrative Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 The Song Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

Introduction The subject of the present study is ‘generic self-consciousness’ and ‘generic interaction’ in the amoebaean eclogues1 of Roman pastoral. Yet this very objective presupposes the notion of a genre, a quite debated issue, especially in the case of pastoral. This term was coined by scholars mainly for the post-classical poetry of the kind in Europe, which is permeated by the eclogues of Vergil thus functioning as the primary literary model of this post-classical poetic trend. It is doubtful, therefore, whether one is entitled to use ex post facto, for the model itself, a term employed for the ‘generic demarcation’ of a subsequent literary evolution.

Methodological Remarks: ‘Bucolic’ or ‘Pastoral’ Genre Despite the fact that a significant part of modern generic theory2 is somewhat reserved as to the definition of genre, the view largely adopted in this study is, according to the formulation of Harrison 2007, 11, that genre exists as a ‘form which can be identified through a particular generic repertoire of external and internal features’. This of course does not mean that such a repertoire is rigid and remains unchanged with the passing of time; yet basic features of the form seem always to be operating and thus often create specific expectations on the part of both the author and the model reader, who therefore may construct meaning on the basis of his / her accumulated ‘generic literary experience’3. Although contemporary critical speech often exhibits a post-modern, deconstructive ‘generic agnosticism’, this is not the case with the majority of the relevant ancient criticism (cf. e. g. Pl. Rep. 3.394b–c, 1 2 3

In the present study, the term denotes pastoral involving song exchange. Cf. especially Croce 1922, 37, 436 – 49, Cohen 1987, 241 – 58, Derrida 1992, Duff 2000, 25 – 8 and Harrison 2007, 11 – 2. For the theoretical issues tackled here, cf. especially the relevant introduction in Harrison 2007, 1 – 33. Cf. also Hirsch 1967, 68 – 126. For pastoral in particular, cf. also Heaney 2008, 245: ‘the pastoral requires at least a minimal awareness of tradition on the part of both the poet and the audience’.

2

Introduction

Ar. Poet. especially 1448a, Hor. Ars especially 73 – 98), mainly of the Hellenistic and the Augustan period, when Theocritus and his Roman counterpart, Vergil, composed pastoral poetry and thus founded this generic formation in Greece and Rome respectively4. The idea of a ‘founder’ / a ‘leading exemplar’ (auctor) of a genre is in all probability the outcome of Alexandrian ‘generic pursuits’, and the same paternity can be ascribed to what Kroll will later label Kreuzung der Gattungen (the crossing of genres), a literary practice common in both Hellenistic times and Augustan Rome5 ; yet the mixing of genres as well as the practice of the recusatio in the Augustan period (the rejection of one genre in favour of another) presuppose the very notion of a distinct genre, despite any degree of ‘generic strictness’ or ‘looseness’ one might discern in various generic formations. Thus every genre appears to possess its distinct ‘generic markers’ both in terms of language, style and of formalistic outlook and themes-motifs; what is more, one often comes across several ‘self-referential’ meta-generic / meta-poetic / meta-linguistic markers, which comment upon the ‘generic outlook’ or norm adopted6. Equally in need of defence is the generic designation of pastoral / bucolic poetry7, especially in the Theocritean corpus. In the relevant (rich) bibliography, one comes across several views, some of them nothing more than quite imaginative mind-games, often contradicting one another, and ranging from the endorsement of bucolic poetry as a genre, defined by means of thematic, metrical or structural features, (although frequently so loosely marked out as to be able to encompass within it almost every other literary genre8), to its total rejection9. 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cf. also Hinds 1987, 116; see also Depew – Obbink 2000, 2 – 3. Cf. also Rossi 1971a, 69 – 94, Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 17 – 41, Harrison 2007, 3 – 4, 6 – 8. See also Zetzel 1983, 83 – 105. Cf. Harrison 2007, 22 – 33. The two terms, ‘pastoral’ and ‘bucolic’, are used interchangeably in the present study, having no particular semantic difference and denoting the same literary genre. Cf. Hubbard 1998, 1 – 2 and n.3. To give a brief overview: Empson 1935 sees in pastoral a ‘process of putting the complex into the simple’ – p. 23; Greg 1906, 4 – 7 demarcates pastoral through the contrast town vs. country as well as by means of a longing after a simpler life, an opposition forming a ‘generic marker’ for Kermode 1952, 14 – 9 as well, see also Green 1990, 233, Gifford 1999, 1 – 2; Goldhill 1991, 223 – 61 focuses on the notions of framing and polyphony; Gutzwiller 1991 adopts the notion of analogy as a main ‘generic structure’ of the bucolic genre; Halperin 1983 crucially rejects the existence of a distinct sub-genre, within the corpus

Methodological Remarks: ‘Bucolic’ or ‘Pastoral’ Genre

3

Yet, even in Theocritus’ case, as Hunter 1999, 5 plausibly remarks, ‘the ‘bucolic terminology’ and the poems in which it appeared…were presumably felt to represent something distinctive in T[heocritus]’s work’; this holds for the idylls centering on the country life of herdsmen10. The view adopted in this study is that it is possible to talk of the formation of a new literary norm even in the case of Theocritus; the continuation (although often in altered form) of motifs, techniques and programmatic aspirations seems to unify a genre from Theocritus up to of the Theocritean idylls, comprising Theocritus’ rural poems (cf. also Alpers 1996, 66, 147 vs. Schmidt 1998 – 9, 238 – 9). What is more he also (cf. op. cit. 126 – 37, 145) explains away the term bucolic as referring to all short non-epic hexameter poetry; Lerner 1972, 27 suggests a distinction between pastoral as ‘convention’, i. e., common motifs / topoi shared by poets imitating one another, and pastoral as ‘theme’, that is pastoral life per se as a topic / subject matter, a distinction also used, up to a point, by Hubbard 1998, 4 – 5; Poggioli 1975, 1 focuses mainly on the desire for innocence and happiness as ‘the psychological root of pastoral’, secured by means of retreat; Rosenmeyer 1969 deals chiefly with the Epicurean colouring of bucolic poetry (for the ‘Epicurean outlook’ of Vergilian pastoral in particular, cf. also Smith 1965, 298 – 304, Rundin 2003, 159 – 76); Williams 1973, 13 – 34 reads pastoral from a Marxist viewpoint and, accordingly, deconstructs the pastoral myth of Golden Age as the affirmation of an ‘aristocratic ideological construction’ against real rustic labour (see also Hubbard 1998, 3 and n.7), whereas Van Sickle 1975, 53 – 61 views bucolic poetry as a subcategory of the Hesiodic epic. Effe 1977 makes use of the concept of ‘distanced irony’ and is of the view that Theocritus parodies the notion of the pastoral genre. Berger 1984, 1 – 39 draws a distinction between a ‘weak’ and a ‘strong’ pastoral (cf. mainly pp. 1 – 2; see also further down n.126), Marx 1964, 5 speaks of a ‘sentimental’ (‘a wish image of happiness’, ‘escapism’) vs. a ‘complex’ pastoralism (involving a ‘contrast of two conditions of consciousness’, the eventual acknowledgment of the unfeasibility of ‘sentimental’ pastoralism as a life style), whereas Marinelli 1971, 6 sees an opposition between a ‘decorative’ (the simplistic version with stock characters and subject matter) and a ‘serious’ pastoral (complex problems, no idealised characters); for such contrasts of the pastoral tradition, cf. also Toliver 1971, 3. More recently, Alpers 1996 has focused his generic definition on the ‘representative anecdote’ (a term taken over from K. Burke’s, A Grammar of Motives, cf. Schmidt 1998 – 9, 232) of pastoral, that is, ‘herdsmen and their lives, rather than landscape or idealised nature’ (cf. p. 22). For a discussion of pastoral on the basis of broader anthropological and ecological anxieties, for a novel environmental, ‘green discourse’ on pastoral, for ‘ecocriticism’, cf. especially Gifford 2006, 14 – 24, Saunders 2006, 3 – 13, 2008. 10 Cf. also Heyworth 2005, 148. Hubbard 1998, 19 – 44 puts forward the notion of ‘poetic tradition’, ‘succession’ as a ‘generic linkage’ between the idylls of bucolic colouring.

4

Introduction

Nemesianus, in the sense of a literary form that, at least up to a point, creates specific ‘generic expectations’ for the (model) reader, leading him thus to the construction of meaning11. In the following paragraphs, I shall focus on these unifying features of pastoral poetry and trace their history within the evolution of the genre. Additionally, several testimonies suggesting an authorial voice relating to the genesis and the formation of a genre are also put forward, with the aim to back up the view of a distinct bucolic ‘generic identity’. Although in many respects not an original contribution, this literature review was felt to be necessary at this point, as a crucial justification, so to speak, of the main concern of this book: the notion of a pastoral genre and its constitutive thematic / stylistic and meta-linguistic ‘generic markers’, especially in the case of the amoebaean bucolic, which form the main focus of the present study. Following this line of thought, the term pastoral / bucolic refers in this study to the poems which are set in the countryside and whose subject is herdsmen and their rural existence. Thus this term, as used here, chiefly encompasses the following poems: (i) Theocritus’ 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1112 and the pseudotheocritean 8, 9, 20, 27; (ii) Bion fr. 5, 9, 10, 1113, also fr. 2, a dialogue on the seasons between two rustic (?) figures14, fr. 3, 4, 14, 16, 17 giving, in all probability, Bion’s version on the Galatea-Cyclops theme15, fr. 13, where, in a county setting again, a fowler attempts to get hold of Eros, the epitaph on Adonis, [Bion] 2 – a pastoral figure’s request for a song from another herdsman16 ; (iii) Mosch. fr. 1 and the epitaph on Bion ([Moschus] 3); (iv) finally, Vergil’s Eclogues and post-Vergilian pastoral, as defined in detail below, pp. 26 ff. It would be an oversimplification, however, to envisage a cohesive and unvarying pastoral world, depicted consistently in the whole of the bucolic corpus, as circumscribed above. It is possible to trace a gradual 11 Cf. also Van Tieghem 1938, 95 – 101, Kohler 1940, 135 – 47, Hirsch 1967, 68 – 126, Nauta 1990, 119 – 20, Thomas 1996, 227 – 9, Hubbard 1998, 19. 12 Thus, from a methodological point of view, I disagree with those critics who make no distinction, as far as genre is concerned, between pastoral poems and those set in a clear-cut urban setting, cf. above n.9; see also Reed 2006, 214. Despite the thematic and formalistic similarities discerned in the poems of the Theocritean corpus, pastoral idylls clearly differ from the rest, primarily on the basis of their focus on bucolic characters and life. 13 Characterised by Reed 1997, 8 as ‘demonstrably pastoral’. 14 Cf. Reed 1997, 9. 15 Cf. also Reed 1997, 10. 16 Cf. Reed 2006, 218. Yet, for the peculiar ‘generic character’ of the poem, see the reservations further down, n.93.

Methodological Remarks: ‘Bucolic’ or ‘Pastoral’ Genre

5

evolution and modification from Theocritus up to the later Greek bucolic poems, let alone Vergilian and post-Vergilian pastoral17; nonetheless, there are several thematic and formal features that unify these poems within a ‘generic framework’: rustic scenery or interests, man’s relation with nature, the importance of music, the dialectic between nature and art, etc. in a poetic, chiefly hexametric, form. Thus, the pastoral corpus of the present study does not include e. g. Longus’ novel Daphnis and Chloe, which, although developing pastoral motifs, does not formally belong to the pastoral poetry of the dactylic hexameter18. A further theoretical admission in this study has to do with the way interaction between genres is taken to operate. In this book, following the terminology of Harrison 2007, 16, the term ‘host genre’ denotes the main generic formation under examination, the genre that keeps the dominant ‘generic role’, i. e., pastoral. A second generic formation, functioning on a secondary level within the ‘host genre’, is designated by the term ‘guest genre’; in my study of pastoral this mostly applies to the elegiac genre and to a lesser degree to georgics and epic. The above distinction also echoes the opposition set up by Jauss 1982, 8 between a ‘generic structure in an independent or constitutive function’, on the one hand, and a generic structure ‘in a dependent or accompanying function’, on the other19. Yet another theoretical tool necessary for the analysis that is to follow is the notion of mode, as developed by Alastair Fowler 1982, 106 – 29, in a chapter significantly entitled ‘Mode and Subgenre’20. ‘Mode’ is the literary situation whereby a text largely belonging to one genre avails itself of some features that can be readily recognised as the ‘generic markers’ of a different genre. This is the case for example with the tenth Vergilian eclogue, as will be discussed later: whereas the poem properly belongs to the bucolic genre, yet several elegiac features are clearly discernible; thus the eclogue can be viewed as the ‘generic interaction’ of two different, albeit neighbouring, literary genres, namely pastoral and elegy. From this perspective, the intention of the present study is to look into the attitude of Roman pastoralists towards the pastoral motifs, exhibited and elaborated in the pastoral poetic corpus they recognise as their model, and to examine cases of ‘generic divergence’ towards 17 18 19 20

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Rossi 1971, 24 – 5, Hunter 1999, 11 – 2. also Schmidt 1998 – 9, 243 vs. Alpers 1996, 323 ff. also Harrison 2007, 16. also Heaney 2008, 250.

6

Introduction

other literary genres, or in any case instances of ‘generic interaction / confrontation’ along the ‘modal’ theoretical line elaborated in the previous paragraph. It is true of course that every attempt a Roman pastoralist makes for dialogue with a different literary genre need not necessarily be labeled as ‘generic deviation’. A poet might employ these means in an endeavour to innovate pastoral as bequeathed to him by incorporating literary motifs often favoured by other literary genres, or trying to create his own bucolic world. This is the process of ‘generic enrichment’ as described by Harrison in his homonymous seminal work (2007), or a process of ‘generic hybridisation’ that leads to the formation of ‘generic hybrids’ thus securing, according to a Darwinian model, the continuation of a generic formation otherwise doomed to extinction (cf. also Brunetière 1890, Kroll 1924, 202 – 24, Cohen 1987, Rossi 2000a, 149 – 61). Instances of this ‘generic branching out’ of pastoral towards other genres, as part of its evolution and survival (especially in the case of post-Vergilian pastoral), are also examined in the present study, for bucolic song per se (i. e., the song exchange) tends to be, from its very beginning, thematically ‘diversifying’ (even if with an obvious emphasis on the erotic), a feature which is so deep-seated that it seems to survive in later pastoral as well. In cases, however, where one comes across a motif or a linguistic / stylistic / metrical or even a structural option which (i) while being extremely common and productive in other literary genres is not so in pastoral (as defined above), (ii) is avoided elsewhere by the Roman pastoralists with only one or two exceptions, and (iii) is (expressly or indirectly) designated as ‘generically deviant’ by the poet (chiefly Vergil) himself, often as part of a general discourse which aims at the ‘generic transcendence’ of an established ‘generic norm’ (cf. e. g. Verg. Ecl. 4, 10, see also Calp. 4, etc.), one may be justified in looking for a ‘generic behaviour’ having a particular ‘generic function’ within the self-contained word of a specific eclogue. The feature in question may be viewed as countering, on the basis of reader-response theory, the reader’s ‘horizon of [generic] expectation’21, the ‘repertoire’22 or challenging, from a structuralist point of view, his / her ‘literary competence’23. In other words, one should understand the above cases as instances of ‘pastoral dislocation’, namely of a ‘generic deviation’ from the ‘established’ – 21 Cf. also Jauss 1982, 88, Harrison 2007, 14. 22 Cf. Fowler 1982, 55. 23 Cf. Culler 1975, 113 – 30, Harrison 2007, 14.

Methodological Remarks: ‘Bucolic’ or ‘Pastoral’ Genre

7

up to the poet’s time – ‘pastoral norm’, producing meaning in a given narrative. To sum up, I do not suggest a cohesive continuity of the pastoral genre; genres do change over time by means of, e. g., literary ‘generic crossing’ (according to Kroll) or of non-literary intrusions into an otherwise literary realm (the view adopted by Russian formalism24), and thus the horizon of even a model reader’s expectation may vary on the basis of the renewed circumstances in the reception of a certain text25. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of pastoral constants which mark, as ‘generic cornerstones’, an otherwise changing generic formation. ‘Deviation’ from these ‘generic markers’ is often a means of constructing meaning: anything that diverges from this consensus of pastoral tradition is usually labeled in the present study as ‘unpastoral’ or ‘anti-bucolic’, and is further taken to signal, in most cases, a motivated ‘generic alteration’ from the ‘pastoral norm’. The term ‘unpastoral’ is in the present study also used in order to refer to a motif or a linguistic / stylistic option absent from the previous bucolic tradition each consecutive bucolic poet draws his material. The term is also used for situations demonstrably marring basic bucolic values, as is, for example, the ‘unfriendly landscape’ of the third Vergilian eclogue. Hence it is true that some of pastoral’s identifying markers seem to be ‘undermined’ or ‘inverted’ as time goes by, as long as the ‘pastoral norm’ evolves; nonetheless this ‘alteration’ should be viewed against the background of a significant ‘generic caveat’: pastoral is, if anything, a genre which makes the creation, exchange and reception of song its principal concern, especially the bucolic sub-type of song exchange. The conception of pastoral as mainly concerned with song production / reception is very well reflected in its constant, and generically defining, preoccupation with poetic voices – their hierarchy, succession, coordination, etc. In other words, the mechanism of song production / reception is at least as important as the song’s thematic. Viewed from this angle, the evolution of pastoral seems to preserve in most cases its ‘phenomenology’ as a song-machine. Whatever herdsmen-singers introduce into their exchanged songs, so long as this basic ‘generic mechanism’ survives (even if distorted) and song goes on as usual, the fundamental ‘raison d’ être’ of bucolic poetry is there. Thus one should always 24 Cf. Harrison 2007, 13 – 4. 25 Cf. Nauta 1990, 119.

8

Introduction

bear in mind that any ‘generic alteration’ takes place against the background of an invariable basic ‘generic mechanism’ of song exchange. Therefore one might argue, and rightly so up to a point, that from Vergil onwards pastoral song is compulsively tempted towards an ‘holistic’, ‘inclusive’ performance, ‘branching out’ and ‘diversifying’ in all sorts of directions. This is tantamount to arguing that pastoral is becoming the ‘all-inclusive’ song par excellence, something which need not necessarily be understood as detracting from the bucolic character, if this ‘comprehensiveness’ simply asserts the genre’s paramount concern with song as such; in this perspective, pastoral need not be referred to as ‘threatened’ by ‘alien generic material’. Elegy, tragedy, etc. do not become part of the pastoral world (and are, in many senses, opposed to it), but by way of becoming subjects of the pastoral character’s song, mainly from Vergil onwards, they are somehow ‘generically neutralised’ – they become ‘citational’. Nonetheless, the view adopted in this study is that if this ‘citational’ material is part of a more general discourse suggesting a sense of a ‘generic deviation’, an ‘inversion’ one way or another of the traditional pastoral world and its assets, these exempla may also be read as adding to the feeling of ‘generic diversity’ and thus may also be viewed as part of the poet’s thematic gamut to suggest, although in ‘citational’ form, a willingness to bring about a ‘transcendence’ of ‘generic boundaries’, as set by the previous bucolic tradition or, in any case, a feeling of ‘generic interaction’. This appears to hold true mostly in narrative framings and self-contained song performances (as e. g. in the eighth Vergilian eclogue), where the telling of a particular story may be more decisive as to the construction of meaning on the part of the reader, as opposed to the random and rather context-less topics of short song exchange patterns. Even in this last case, however, ‘citational’ performance may occasionally be of some significance as to the ‘generic outlook’ of a poem (see e. g. chapter 2, especially pp. 111 – 22). Of course, an important question arising at this juncture is the ‘modus vivendi’ between pastoral and panegyric, especially as the latter seems to descend from un-neoteric (even epic) discourse. One witnesses here a significant ‘generic pollution’ or ‘dislocation’ of the very mechanism of song exchange per se, a ‘generic alteration’ of pastoral’s nuclear poetics, since this song exchange device loses its original function as a tool of song production / reception and tends to become a (political) eulogy with a mere semblance of song exchange, falsifying the ‘open’ character of the bucolic agon and adopting, in Bachtinean terms, a ‘monologic’ rather than a ‘dialogic’ character. This is especially true

Methodological Remarks: ‘Bucolic’ or ‘Pastoral’ Genre

9

of Calpurnius and the Einsiedeln Eclogues, where pastoral mostly functions as a simple means for the eulogy of the emperor in opposition to the more reserved panegyrical tones of Vergilian bucolics, subordinate for the most part to the largely pastoral contextual setting (cf. also chapter 7, especially p. 243 and n.18). The relationship of pastoral to other genres deserves closer scrutiny as well: If the place of pastoral in relation to a discourse of the genus grande (epic, tragedy and panegyric to a certain extent) is easy enough for a reader to decipher, the position of pastoral within the complex neoteric poetic discourse is more ambiguous, as pastoral is less easily definable over and against various other competing neoteric discourses. Is, for instance, erotic poetry (mainly elegy) a form that can be clearly and sharply distinguished from pastoral and if so, how is this feasible? Erotic elegy is perhaps a more ‘pragmatic’ sort of discourse defined by the fiction of its ‘usefulness’ (Nützlichkeit) in matters of love. Besides, elegiac passion hardly fits into the pastoral scheme of things, as it ‘threatens’ the all-important value of bucolic serenity (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 10). Thus, if erotic elegy is a fiction of a song about love and its practicalities (as often assumed) and pastoral is an open procedure of ‘song about song’, we are entitled to think of pastoral as a more ‘pure’ version of neoteric aestheticism descending from the Callimachean paradigm. If such a distinction within the neoteric domain is sustainable, then it is possible to argue once again that pastoral in its evolution gradually loses its purity – this subtle and ‘disinterested’ poetic purity (see also previous paragraph), which, under threat already in the Vergilian bucolic corpus, eventually fails to survive into a later age. Nevertheless it is also possible to claim that in later Roman pastoral, the earlier, often sharp, distinctions between pastoral and erotic poetry are no longer existent, and that previous well-defined ‘generic outlines’ begin to blur, as post-Vergilian Neoterics tend to ‘telescope’, ‘zoom out’ the various genres into an undifferentiated mass of ‘classical Roman neotericism’. Thus they often disregard the subtle formalist and meta-generic variations between different, although neoteric, poetic discourses. However, even in the case of post-Vergilian bucolics, one might be justified in speaking of a ‘generic re-evaluation’ or at least ‘interaction’ in cases of variation regarding basic ‘generic constituents’ of the pastoral genus (locus amoenus, pathetic fallacy, etc., cf. the following sub-chapters, pp. 11 – 49) and, even more, when this modification occurs within a more general discourse, where a sense of ‘generic dislocation’ from the pastoral tradition, a desire to ‘transcend’ the generically established

10

Introduction

seems to be operating (cf. e. g. Calp. 4). For earlier Roman pastoral (i. e., Vergil), however, the unwitting genre blurring is not always available as an interpretational option (since the distinction between genus grande and genus tenue as well as the dichotomies among several neoteric forms within the genus tenue still reign supreme) and, therefore, any indication of rapprochement between genres must be accorded special significance; by incorporating non-pastoral ‘generic features’ in his Eclogues, Vergil not only creates a canon of pastoral that henceforth may include these genera but also, simultaneously, manages to perpetuate various ‘generic tensions’ (mainly between elegy and pastoral). It must be stressed here that pastoral is by no means considered as a ‘time-free generic zone’; one could easily understand that Calpurnius, the Einsiedeln author/s as well as Nemesianus, as late comers, ‘zooming out’ the previous literary tradition and its occasional fine nuances, as previously suggested, do not (always) play the ‘generic games’ that their main Roman model, i. e., Vergil, applies in both forming the ‘generic profile’ of his bucolic poetry and depicting various ‘generic interplays’; nonetheless the surrounding literary milieu of both the early Neronian period, with its notable penchant for recovery or even inversion of Augustan literary trends (cf. sub-chapter on Calpurnius, especially p. 40) 26, and the distinct classicism of Nemesianus’ literary aspirations as well (cf. sub-chapter on Nemesianus, p. 47 and n.239) 27 may justify some of the research aims set out above. As part of a rhetoric of ‘generic change’ beyond the boundaries of ‘orthodox’ pastoral, it is important that a clearly outlined picture of the ‘original’ bucolics is given; this is provided immediately below (sub-chapters 2 and 3, pp. 11 – 26), where the ‘generic cornerstones’ of mainly Theocritean and post-Theocritean Greek pastoral are summarised; it is there that one comes across the main ‘generic markers’ of pastoral in their ‘purest’ form: song as the chief value of the ‘green community’, the friendly pastoral landscape (especially the construction of a locus amoenus, pathetic fallacy incidents, etc.), suitable for producing bucolic song, often as a result of a meeting of two or more herdsmen, lack of urban interests and ideals / objectives (marriage, legal concerns, etc.), emphasis on the bucolic tranquility as opposed to frustrated, unreciprocated love-affairs, bisexuality, setting up of a rustic pantheon, etc. Yet even in the case of Theocritus, one may encounter instances 26 Cf. especially Mayer 1982, 305, Esposito 2009, 33 and n.45. 27 Cf. Walter 1988, 100 – 3.

Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre

11

of ‘unpastoral dispositions’ running counter to established pastoral habits, ideas, values, sometimes due to their rarity, as is for example the image of a lone singer in the night of the Cyclops-idyll 11 (cf. especially chapter 5, pp. 200, 201). In Vergil and later on however, where history starts to impinge on the bucolic scenery, pastoral becomes less and less ‘pure’, and thus a process of ‘generic dislocation’, a course of action countering or even doing away with pastoral ‘generic features’ sine qua non in the earlier bucolic tradition is already discernible in Vergilian pastoral (cf. sub-chapter 4, pp. 26 ff. and passim) 28.

Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre Although no clear ‘generic identity’ is spelt out in the Theocritean idylls29, one may nevertheless discern features which can be interpreted as indicators of innovation, at least in the case of the poems concerned with pastoral life and its assets, the so-called ‘bucolic idylls’, namely 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1130, and especially those construed in the form of a more or less agonistic exchange. First of all, the Theocritean corpus contains poetological terminology, one of which is boujokiasl|r, a key-term in the following discussion. Boujokiasl¹r is song produced by herdsmen (the term bouj|kor is not restricted to oxherds only31) while leading their flocks, and bucolic song of this kind was chiefly believed to have been invented by Diomos, the oxherd from Sicily, cf. Athenaeus 14.619a–b. Daphnis is also presented as the inventor of bucolic song, cf. Diod. Sic. 4.84, see also Aelian V.H. 10.1832. It would be plausible 28 I am deeply indebted to Professor Th. Papanghelis for his crucial contribution in the shaping of this section. 29 For ‘idylls’ in the sense of ‘short poems of different types’, cf. Gutzwiller 1996, 130; for Gutzwiller 1996, 129 – 33 the term initially referred to the contents of an early, probably a third century, compilation of Theocritean poems. Yet, cf. the reservations of Fantuzzi 1997, 911 – 2. 30 For an opposite view, cf. Lawall 1967, 1 – 13, who considers idylls 1 – 7 as a special group of pastoral poems, calling them ‘Coan Pastorals’. For a distinct bucolic Theocritean corpus comprising Id. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, cf. especially Segal 1977, 35 – 68. 31 Cf. Hunter 1999, 8 and n.26. 32 For the view that pastoral poetry has as its source real songs of herdsmen, cf. Scaliger 1561, 6 – 9; see also Della Valle 1927, 38 – 72, Merkelbach 1956, 97 – 110, Green 1990, 234 – 5. For Theocritus’ relation to Sicilian songs with pastoral themes, see also Dover 1971, lxi–lxiii.

12

Introduction

to assume that Theocritus draws on ‘traditions of Sicilian song-making’ (‘Sicilian traditions of bucolic song’ probably also exploited by both Philoxenus (Cyclops / Galateia) and Euripides in his Cyclops (vv. 41 – 62)), in an attempt to form a new genre or, if ‘genre’ sounds too formal a term to use at this stage, a distinctively new literary norm33. The notion of boujokiasl¹r (in the sense of ‘song delivered by herdsmen’) is expressed in the Theocritean corpus by means of both nominal and verbal stems and is clearly connected with the concept of a song exchange34. In Id. 5.44 Comatas, challenged by Lacon to a singing match, is dared to a boujokiasl¹r for the last time, v. 44: vstata boujokian0, Lacon uses the very same verb when challenging his opponent at v. 60: aqt|he boujoki\sdeu, and this is also the case with v. 36: boujokiasd~lesha35 of the seventh programmatic idyll, when Simichidas / Theocritus proposes to the semi-divine Lycidas, presiding over the bucolic space, to produce a song within a boujokiasl¹r setting. The nominal stem appears significantly in the programmatic first idyll, where Thyrsis is presented as having attained mastery in boujokij± !oid\, (vv. 19 – 20); furthermore, the very song of Thyrsis was also delivered in a contest with Chromis from Libya, v. 24. The same adjective occurs in Lycidas’ reaction to Simichidas’ challenge, when in v. 49 of an equally programmatic idyll, Id. 7, the goatherd replies: boujokij÷r taw]yr !qn~leh’ !oid÷r. The noun boujokiastµr occurs also in the fifth idyll as part of both Lacon’s and Comatas’ definition as song per33 Cf. Hunter 1999, 9. Other theories that align the genesis of bucolic genre with ritual seem less compelling, cf. Reitzenstein 1893, 193 – 243, Hathorn 1961, 228 – 38, Cremonesi 1958, 109 – 22, Baudy 1993, 282 – 318; for Eastern religious / mythological influence, cf. also Berg 1974, 15 – 22, Trencsényi-Waldapfel 1966, 27 – 31, Halperin 1983a, 183 – 200, Anderson 1993, 65 – 79; see also Halperin, 1983, 85 – 117. For the dionysiac element in Greek bucolic poetry, cf. also Wojaczyk 1969. According to Griffin 1992, 189 – 211, Theocritean pastoral is to be associated with pre-Homeric relevant traditions in Asia Minor with which Theocritus becomes acquainted through the intermediary of the Iliad and the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite; for Near Eastern traditions, cf. also 1992a, 552 – 76. Concerning the influence of archaic lyric on amoebaean song exchange, cf. mainly Della Valle 1927, 9 – 37, Rosenmeyer 1966, 325 – 7. Cf. also Vara 1992, 333 – 44, for the literary models of this new generic formation. 34 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 5 – 9; see also 2006, 117. 35 The harsh –sd– sound suggests rusticity and, therefore, this consonant cluster appears in words referring to typical bucolic issues and activities, suq_sdy, boujoki\sdy, xihuq_sdy ; see Molinos-Tejada 1990, 129 – 31.

Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre

13

formers, vv. 67 – 8: %ller c±q 1q_sdoler, fstir !qe_ym boujokiast\r 1sti. In all the above cases, the term crucially suggests an exchange of song within a bucolic setting of either improvised songs (Id. 5) or previously prepared performances (Id. 7) with or without a distinct bucolic colouring (cf. e. g. Lycidas’ propemptikon). This exchange is part of either an amoebaean singing match between herdsmen or of a friendly encounter. Thus the terminology in question, used with a specific semantic load, seems to signal the formation of a new poetic ‘genre’. What is more, both programmatic Theocritean idylls (1 and 7) hint at the formation of something new; although, in opposition to the case of Vergil’s eclogue 1, one cannot be conclusive enough concerning Theocritus’ calling upon a previous bucolic tradition in his first idyll, the very fact that a notion of bucolic prehistory exists within the poem itself may render the assumption of a pre-Theocritean bucolic tradition, on which the poet draws his material, quite plausible36. The focus here is on v. 19: D\vmidor %kcea, which have repeatedly been the topic of song performances, on vv. 20, 24, where Thyrsis is presented as an established poet, who participated in poetic contests, suggesting in its turn the accumulative experience of a bucolic prehistory, and on vv. 27 – 61, the images carved on the marvelous cup. To go one step further, the first Theocritean idyll, due to its initial position in a collection entitled Boujokij\, also functions as a programmatic piece, founding a pastoral tradition37. The idyll’s programmatic character is emphasised through the ecphrasis on the cup, which functions as the ‘bucolisation’ of its intertextual model, the shield of Achilles in the Iliad (18.478 – 608). At the same time it suggests, as a piece of art, both the restricted interests of bucolic poetry against the ‘wider world’ (cf. Hunter 1999, 76) and a new poetic style, where the notion of pleasure is pre-eminent (vv. 1 – 2). The new style is symbolised by the pastoral syrinx itself 38, while a programmatic emphasis on the Callimachean notion of poetic slenderness can also be discerned in the idyll (cf. also further down, p. 15). What is more, the ecphrasis of the boy weaving (a standard image suggesting poetic creation) a cage for crickets against the background of marauding foxes has often been viewed as an image

36 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 60 – 1, 76 – 7. 37 Cf. also Van Sickle 1975, 54 – 8, 1976, 22, Hunter 1999, 61, Breed 2006b, 93. For Id. 1 as a kind of bucolic agon as well, see Frangeskou 1996, 23 – 42. 38 Cf. Hunter 1999, 69, 2006, 116.

14

Introduction

of the bucolic poet and his Alexandrian – Callimachean poetic aspirations39. Additionally, idyll 1 also offers a historical account of the origins of bucolic song, upon which the formation of new poetry is generically established; the new genre is related to tqacyid_a-song, the performance of which is rewarded by a goat prize (vv. 1 – 11). The association is enhanced by the theme of suffering40, which alludes to lament as the prehistorical core of the tragic genre, and by the central presence of Dionysus in the idyll. This is established by means of the dionysiac setting of the ecphrasis (the vineyard as the background against which is developed the image of the boy who is weaving a cage, standing as a symbol for the bucolic poet41), the decoration of the cup with curling ivy, as well as by the very name of Thyrsis42. The association of pastoral with Dionysus is also secured by the seventh idyll, vv. 154 f., which describes a bacchic miracle, the marvelous wine43. Yet bucolic as a genre is also related to comedy, chiefly through the comic subject matter of the cup ecphrasis, whereas later Peripatetic school associated the origin of pastoral with the beginnings of the comic genre44. On the other hand, lines 1.7 – 8 also relate it to its epic intertexts, namely Hes. Th. 786 – 7 and Od. 17.209 – 10, as they point to the epic origins of pastoral, ‘as a re-writing and re-evaluation of epic’, cf. Hunter 1999, 73. Last but not least, there are a number of formal features which serve as additional signals for the genesis of a new genre: a penchant for epic forms and a high incidence of the bucolic diaeresis accompanied by colon end / period45. The birth of a new genre can be detected in the seventh idyll as well, which has frequently been recognised, as already previously remarked, as also programmatic in nature46. The poem is about the ‘bucolisation’ 39 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 22 and n.10: ‘the playful child is another figure of Callimachean poetics (Aet. 1, fr. 1.5 – 6 Pf.)’; see also Ott 1969, 99 – 109, Halperin 1983, 176 – 81, Goldhill 1987, 2 – 3. 40 Cf. Hunter 1999, 61 – 2, 2006, 124. 41 Cf. also Cairns 1984, 102 – 5, Goldhill 1987, 1 – 6. 42 Cf. Hunter 1999, 62, 78. 43 Cf. Hunter 1999, 198. 44 Cf. Hunter 1999, 5 – 6, 61 – 2. 45 Cf. Di Benedetto 1956, 54 – 5, Van Sickle 1975, 55, Hunter 1999, 60. 46 Cf. Kühn 1958, 40 – 79, Puelma 1960, 144 – 64, Lohse 1966, 413 – 25, Luck 1966, 186 – 9, Lawall 1967, 74 – 117, Giangrande 1968, 491 – 533, Williams 1971, 137 – 45, Serrao 1971, 13 – 68, Segal 1981, 110 – 66, Bowie 1985, 67 –

Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre

15

of an urban poet, Simichidas, in all probability the poetic persona of Theocritus himself 47, after an encounter modeled on Homeric ‘encounter scenes’48 and an exchange of songs with Lycidas, a semi-divine figure protecting ‘pastoral space’. The Callimachean aesthetics as evoked by vv. 45 – 5149 (cf. especially v. 51 – small size, t¹ lek}dqiom, disapproval of those who strive to rival Homer in constructing buildings as high as Mt. Oromedon, and highly refined poetic composition as the outcome of toilsome work – 1nep|mesa50) bring Theocritus’ pastoral poetry close to Callimachus’ slender Muse, a poetic adherence which becomes more evident, as will be discussed further down, in the case of Vergilian bucolics. Callimachean undertones are also discernible in the case of the first programmatic poem, both at its beginning, vv. 1 – 3, and at its end, vv. 146 – 851, where the sweetness of pastoral poetry is noticeably evoked. It is crucial to note that several pastoral ‘generic constituents’ that turn up in pastoral literature of post-Theocritean Greek and Roman successors occur for the first time in the Theocritean corpus, although differentiated up to a point (cf. also following sub-chapters, pp. 20 – 49 and chapter 4, pp. 157 – 67, where the historical evolution of the motifs in question is given):

47 48 49

50

51

91, Williams 1987, 107 – 20, Effe 1988, 87 – 91, Hunter 1999, 144 – 51 and passim, Hubbard 1998, 22 – 8. Cf. also Fantuzzi 2006, 253 – 4. See, however, the reservations of Krevans 1983, 219, Bowie 1985, 67 – 8, Goldhill 1991, 229 – 30. Cf. Puelma 1960, 144 – 64. Williams 1987, 108 – 16 has read Lycidas as symbolising Callimachus himself, whereas for Lycidas as the figure of Hesiod, cf. Schwinge 1974, 44 – 5 and Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 36 – 7. For the various allegorical readings of this figure, cf. mainly Gow 1952, 130, Cataudella 1956, 160, Hubbard 1998, 24 – 6 and nn.15, 16 on p. 24. Other figures of the Theocritean corpus have also been viewed as symbols of Callimachus and his poetics, cf. Reitzenstein 1893, 229 – 34 for Battus of the fourth Theocritean idyll. For the relationship of Callimachus with Theocritus, cf. also Gercke 1887, 593 – 626, Legrand 1898, 69 – 73, Schlatter 1941, Hutchinson 1988, 197 – 203. Cf. also Hunter 1999, 165 – 6, Breed 2006b, 92 – 3 vs. Cameron 1995, 417 – 8. See also Papanghelis 2006, 397 and n.66. It is on the basis of the ponos motif that Ogawa 1983, 66 – 81 reads Verg. Ecl. 6 as belonging to the Theocritean pastoral tradition, despite the lack of a distinct ‘pastoral outlook’. For the programmatic sweetness (see also Theocr. 7.51, 80 – 5), cf. also Breed 2006, 111 – 2.

16

Introduction

1. The pathetic fallacy motif: nature responds to human actions and events, including the herdsmen’s song. The theme occurs in Theocritus’ programmatic idylls52 in relation to the archetypical pastoral figure of Daphnis, who is mourned by animals and trees53 in Id. 1.71 – 5 and 7.73 – 7, cf. also 4.12 – 4. What is more, in Id. 6.45 the heifers are presented as responding to the music of Damoitas and Daphnis by their dance. This last case crucially provides the model for the pathetic reaction of nature to the song preformed by Vergil’s herdsmen (goatherds, shepherds, cowherds, etc.54), cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.4 – 5, 2.4 – 5, 6.10 – 1, 82 – 4, 8.22 – 4, 10.8. 2. The locus amoenus: the construction of a typical idyllic landscape, usually comprising respite, shade (cf. Id. 1.21, 3.38, 5.48, 61, 7.8 – 9, 88, 138), often indispensable under the scorching summer sun (cf. Id. 6.4, 16, 7.21), cool water and blooming flora (cf. Id. 1.2, 106 – 7, 5.31 – 4, 45 – 9, 7.7 – 9, 88, 135 – 47, 11.45 – 8) lies at the heart of the pastoral genre. Pastoral sounds further complement the image of an idyllic landscape (whispering of the pine trees, cf. 1.1, cascading water, cf. 1.7 – 8, bees humming, cf. 5.46, birds chirping, cf. 5.47 – 8, etc.). Furthermore, Theocritus creates a typical pastoral landscape both by making use of (rocky) mountain / forest settings55 and by creating a standardised flora (cf. the emblematic pine tree, see 1.1, 134, 3.38, 5.49, 7.88, tamarisks, 1.13, 5.101, the elm tree, 1.21, 7.8, 136, the oak tree, 1.23, 106, 5.45, 61, 102, 117, 7.74, 88, cf. also the holm-oak, 5.94 – 5, the poplar, 7.8, 136, arbutus, 5.129, etc.56) and fauna (goats57, sheep58, cows 52 For a survey of the motif in Hellenistic pastoral, cf. especially Buller 1981, 35 – 52; see also Reed 1997, 215, Fantuzzi 1998, 63 – 4, 2006, 242 – 3, Hunter 1999, 88 – 9. For a comparative study of the topic in Theocritus, Moschus and Vergil, cf. also Dick 1968, 27 – 44 who, however, reads in Vergil’s manipulation of the motif the manifestation of a cosmic force. 53 For the Theocritean flora, cf. mainly Lembach 1970; see also Lindsell 1937, 78 – 93. 54 For a not so strict hierarchisation of herdsmen as a feature of the Theocritean pastoral, cf. especially Berman 2005, 228 – 45. 55 Cf. Id. 1.8, 13, 65 – 9, 72, 77, 83, 105, 115 – 8, 123 – 4, 136, 4.19, 35, 46, 56, 5.16, 32, 7.50 – 1, 74 – 7, 87, 91 – 2, 111, 114, 148 – 50, 11.27, 47. 56 What is more, the Theocritean flora of the bucolic idylls also includes cypresses, cf. 11.45, olives, cf. 4.44, 5.32, 100, 7.18, ferns, cf. 3.14, 5.55, vine / grape clusters, cf. 1.45 – 6, 48 – 9, 53 – 4, 5.109, 112 – 3, 7.65 ff., 134, 147 ff., 11.21, 46, galingales, cf. 1.106, juniper, cf. 1.133, ivy, cf. 3.14, 22, 11.46, oregany, cf. 5.56, reeds, brambles and thorns, cf. 1.132, 4.50, 57, 5.125, nettles,

Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre

17

and bulls, heifers and calves59, flocks in general60, etc.61) functioning as additional ‘generic markers’ of his bucolic poems. Genre-creation is further complemented by the inclusion of a number of pastoral accessories: pails, bowls, and cups62, herdsman’s garments (rennet, shirt, belt, goatskins / lambskins, cloak) 63, herdsman’s crook64, winnowing fan, cf. 7.156, baskets for cheese or other products, cf. 5.86 – 7, 11.73, shovel, cf. 4.10. Cf. also the pen, 4.61 and 7.153. 3. Singing and piping: these are the main activities of pastoral herdsmen65 ; thus the fashioning of a pipe becomes an important pastoral issue (cf. Id. 1.128 – 9). The menial activities of everyday pastoral

57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65

cf. 7.110, sweet rushes, cf. 7.133, violets, cf. 1.132, 7.64, lilies, cf. 11.56, narcissus, cf. 1.133, roses, cf. 5.93, 7.63, 11.10, asphodels, cf. 7.68, poppies and sheaves, cf. 7.157, 11.57, cyclamen, cf. 5.123, hyacinth, cf. 11.26, bays, cf. 11.45, anise, cf. 7.63, beans, cf. 7.66, fleabanes, cf. 4.25, 7.68, celery, cf. 3.23, 7.68, briar, cf. 5.92, windflower, cf. 5.92, acorn, cf. 5.94, medlar, cf. 5.94, clover, cf. 5.128, goatwort, cf. 5.128, mastich, cf. 5.129, bee-balm, cf. 5.130, cf. also 4.25, solflower, cf. 5.131, thistledown, cf. 6.15 – 6, restharrow, cf. 4.25, apples and pears, cf. 1.134, 3.10, 41, 5.88, 6.7, 7.144, 11.10, plums, cf. 7.145 – 6, figs, cf. 1.147, 5.115. Cf. Id. 1.4 – 5, 14, 25, 57, 87 – 8, 143, 151 – 2, 3.1 – 5, 34 ff., 4.39, 5.1, 12, 21, 24, 27, 30, 41 – 2, 73, 81, 84 – 5, 100, 141 – 2, 145, 147 – 8, 7.87, 97. Cf. Id. 1.9 – 11, 109, 3.46, 4.10, 5.3, 24, 83, 99, 130, 139, 144, 149, 6.6, 10, 11.20, 24. Cf. Id. 1.74 – 5, 120 – 1, 4.1, 4, 12, 15, 20, 35, 44 – 5, 52, 6.45, 11.21. Cf. Id. 3.43, 5.72, 75, 6.2, 21, 28. Cf. also pigs, cf. 5.23, jackals, cf. 1.71, 115, wolves, cf. 1.71, 115, 3.53, 4.11, 5.38, 106, 11.24, lions, cf. 1.72, 3.15, hares, cf. 1.110, fawns, cf. 11.40, bears, cf. 1.115, 11.41, dogs, cf. 1.135, 5.27, 38, 106, 6.9, 29, stags, cf. 1.135, wild beasts in general (hgq_a), cf. 1.110, 5.107, the menacing foxes, cf. 1.48, 5.112, frogs, cf. 7.41, 139 – 40 / insects: cf. bees and honey / honeycombs, cf. 1.107, 146, 3.13, 5.46, 126 – 7, 7.81, 142, the programmatic cicada, cf. 1.148, 4.16, 5.29, 110 (see also Rosenmeyer 1969, 270), cf. also crickets, grasshoppers and locusts, 1.52, 5.34, 108, 7.41, wasps, cf. 5.29 / beetles, cf. 5.114 / birds: owls, cf. 1.136, nightingales, cf. 1.136, 5.136, larks, cf. 7.23, 141, finches, cf. 7.141, turtle-doves, cf. 7.141, halcyons, cf. 7.57, 59, roosters, cf. 7.123, ring-doves, cf. 5.96, 133, jays, cf. 5.136, hoopoes, cf. 5.137, swans, cf. 5.137 / reptiles: lizards, cf. 7.22. Cf. Id. 1.26 ff., 143, 149 – 50, 5.104 – 5. Cf. Id. 3.25, 5.2, 9 – 11, 15, 50 ff., 98 – 9, 7.15 – 9. Cf. Id. 4.49, 7.19, 43, 128. Cf. Id. 1.3, 12 – 4, 16, 19 – 20, 60 – 3, 65, 3.1, 38, 4.28 ff., 5.4 – 8, 19, 21 – 2, 31 – 2, 44, 60, 67, 135, 6.5, 9, 20, 43 – 4, 7.28, 36 – 8, 41, 49, 71 – 2, 88 – 9, 91 ff., 11.38.

18

Introduction

life (milking66, cheese making67, pasturing / driving the herd68, watering of the flock, 1.121, shearing, 5.26, 98 – 9, hunting, 1.16 – 7, 110, cutting wood, 5.64 – 5), although securing a sense of relevant pastoralism, do not constitute the main task of pastoral man. What matters in the pastoral community is the production of pastoral song, either accompanying realistic pastoral activities (Id. 4, 5) or functioning as their substitute (Id. 1, cf. also 3.1 – 269). Despite the fact that solo performances do exist in the Theocritean bucolic, in idylls 3 and 11, what stands out in the tradition of Theocritus’ bucolic, as will be thoroughly discussed in the fifth chapter, cf. p. 201, is pastoral song as the outcome of a conversation, as the result of ‘convening’ (term of Alpers 199670), i. e., the act of coming together of various herdsmen. This type of song can take the form of an eristic singing match, of a spirited exchange (Id. 5) or of a friendly, non-competitive exchange of songs (Id. 7). Even the song performance of the first programmatic idyll, as already remarked, p. 12, is set against the competitive setting between Thyrsis and Chromis of Libya71. Pastoral song is performed during day-time (especially noon, cf. also Id. 1.15, 6.4, 7.21), frequently under the cool shade of a tree, cf. Id. 1.21 – 372 ; night is not fitting for its delivery73. Good weather thus is the normal set for the performance of pastoral song, whereas winter scenery or bad weather in general are viewed in negative terms, as they do not facilitate bucolic song (cf. especially chapter 1, pp. 57 – 60). 4. The pastoral pantheon: a ‘generic identity’ is further construed by the formation of a pantheon. The Muses are thus largely deprived of their familiar role as the patron deities presiding over pastoral poetry, for this function is now generally assigned to the Nymphs74. 66 Cf. Id. 1.6, 25, 143, 151, 4.3, 5.26 – 7, 84 – 5, 11.35; see also 75. 67 Cf. also Id. 1.58, 5.86 – 7, 11.36 – 7. 68 Cf. Id 1.109, 120, 3.1 – 5, 46, 4.2 – 4, 17 – 8, 5.83, 88 – 9, 7.87, 113, 11.12 – 3, 34. 69 Cf. Hunter 1999, 74; see also Fantuzzi 2006, 237, 241. 70 For a criticism of this thesis, cf. Schmidt 1998 – 9, 233 – 4; for pastoral song ‘performed in company’ within the Vergilian bucolic corpus, cf. also Breed 2006b, 89. 71 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 8. 72 Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.1 – 2, 4 – 5, 2.3 – 5. 73 Cf. below chapter 5, p. 201. 74 Cf. Id. 1.12, 22, 66, 141, 4.29, 5.12, 17, 54, 140, 149, 7.92, 137, 148, 154.

Theocritus and the Formation of a Bucolic Genre

19

Pan75, Apollo76, Priapus (Id. 1.21, 81) as well as Demeter (Id. 7.3, 32, 155) are also included in the pastoral pantheon, as is also the case with Bacchus77. Accordingly, it is now the deities of this pastoral pantheon who are the main recipients of both invocations and sacrificial offerings from the pastoral characters. 5. Eros as a threat to pastoral life: Although forming the subject of several Theocritean idylls (Id. 1, 7), eros, especially in its unreciprocated version, functions as one of the main causes for havoc in pastoral everyday life, and for the loss of a pastoral good par excellence, "suw_a78. Thus, in order to win the heart of his beloved, the pastoral lover plans through and carries out an erotic strategy, which involves a series of devices: gifts, ‘playing hard to get’, and self-praise extolling his own personal appearance and pastoral wealth, while singing or piping excellence constitutes a further asset of the herdsman in love, cf. mainly Id. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11. This scheme for winning over a beloved is to be found in later pastoral as well (cf. especially chapter 6, pp. 227 ff.). As for the sexual orientation of the bucolic world, the generic bisexuality of the genre (cf. Id. 5, 7) is self-declared. Eros or lack thereof seems to account for the loss of the archetypical pastoral poet, Daphnis (Id. 1, cf. also 5.20, 7.73 ff.); thus lamentation for the loss of an eminent member of the bucolic community and the concomitant notion of suffering becomes a further topic of the pastoral genre79. Yet another eros-related motif to occur in later pastoral as well has to do with the view of eros as both the cause and the v\qlajom of love (cf. Id. 11). 6. Stylistic markers: the new generic formation seems to adopt in concentration a number of stylistic features that have been handed down to later bucolic: some animal and plant comparisons (cf. Id. 7.96 – 7, 11.19 – 24), mainly in agonistic settings (cf. Id. 5.29, 92 – 5, 136 – 7,

Cf. Id. 1.3, 16, 123, 4.47, 5.14, 58, 141, 6.21, 7.103, 106, cf. also 4.63. Cf. Id. 5.79, 82, 6.27, 7.101. Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 153 – 7, Fantuzzi 2006, 237. Cf. also Fantuzzi 2006, 256 – 7. For the Epicurean character of Theocritus’ attitude towards eros, cf. especially Rosenmeyer 1969, 79 – 85. 79 Cf. also Breed 2006, 105: ‘pastoral too has a generic imperative to represent suffering’, cf. also pp. 107 – 8, 110 – 1, 2006a, 363: ‘In Theocritus’ Id. 1 singing about Daphnis is the first act in the creation of pastoral’. See also Hunter 2006, 124. 75 76 77 78

20

Introduction

6.1580), the priamel form (cf. Id. 1.1 – 11) 81, adynata (cf. Id. 1.132 – 6, 5.124 – 7) 82, framing narrative settings83. Last but not least, the importance of ancient scholastic tradition in connection with a concept of a distinct bucolic genre must not be ignored; the notion of a clear-cut pastoral genus was endorsed by the scholiasts of Theocritus, as early as the beginnings of the first century BC (Asclepiades of Myrlea, Theon, etc.). These grammarians build on the idea of a new literary genre by singling out various typical and recurring features of the ‘green cabinet’ and its poetry, deducible through an attentive and close reading of the pastoral poems themselves (like the motifs indicated earlier in this sub-chapter, pp. 15 – 9) and suggesting a sense of a ‘standardised coherence’, a ‘systematisation’ of the pastoral genus. Hellenistic scholarship also aimed at reconstructing a prehistory of the bucolic genre, on the model of comedy and tragedy, and is thus instrumental in the process of a new generic formation84.

Post-Theocritean Bucolics: The Continuation of a Genre Post-Theocritean bucolic poetry comprises mainly Moschus and Bion as well as several of the pseudotheocritean idylls: the list includes 8, 9 (these two, probably dated around the end of the third century BC85, seem to have been appended to a post-Theocritean collection of idylls 1 – 7 or 1 and 3 – 7 and are construed on the basis of the song exchange pattern, between the herdsmen Daphnis and Menalcas) 86, 20 and 27 and excerpts dubiously attributed either to Bion or Moschus, denoted in the present study chiefly as [Bion] and [Moschus]. A combination of formal and thematic similarities point to the ‘generic association’ of this poetry with Theocritus’ idylls, while at the same time betray a ‘generic re-evaluation and extension’ of the Theo80 81 82 83

Cf. Rosenmeyer 1969, 257. Cf. also Rosenmeyer 1969, 257 – 61. Cf. also Rosenmeyer 1969, 264 – 7. For the notion of ‘framing’ as essential to pastoral poetics, cf. especially Goldhill 1991, 223 – 83. For the same issue in Vergilian pastoral, cf. especially Rumpf 1996 and the notion of ‘Rahmung’. 84 Cf. Fantuzzi 2006, 235 – 62. 85 Cf. Arland 1937, 64, Rossi 1971, 25, Hubbard 1998, 20 and n.4. 86 Cf. Ahrens 1874, 393 – 4.

Post-Theocritean Bucolics: The Continuation of a Genre

21

critean model87. Post-Theocritean bucolic, written mainly in hexameters88, chiefly in a poetic Doric dialect (although less rich in Dorisms than in Theocritus89), exhibits up to a point a thematic breadth shown by Theocritean idylls as well. Yet critics have often deplored the lack of ‘pure’ pastoral motifs in – some at least – of the Theocritean successors as compared to their model90 ; one, however, should take into account that our knowledge of the period derives first and foremost from fragments / excerpts. From this perspective, the possibility of a distorted picture should be kept in mind at all times, not only owing to the scanty evidence but also due the very nature of the meager data, as the excerptors normally chose to quote a passage in accordance with their own objectives. Yet even in these special, almost accidental, circumstances of preservation, it should not escape notice that distinct pastoral thematic relating to country life, bucolic landscapes and singing herdsmen does occur: cf. Bion fr. 5, 9, 10, 11, 1291, 13, 1692, E.A., [Bion] 293, Mosch. fr. 1, [Moschus] 3–E.B., [Theocr.] 8, 9 (both song exchanges), 20 (an anonymous herdsman’s account of his rejection by the urban figure Eunica) 94, 27 (an account of Daphnis’ erotic success in courting the

87 For an excellent discussion of post-Theocritean pastoral poetry, its ‘Theocritean outlook’ as well as its ‘deviation’ from the main Theocritean model, cf. Bernsdorff 2006, 167 – 207, Reed 2006, 209 – 34. For the ‘generic self-awareness’ of post-Theocritean bucolic poetry, see especially Bernsdorff 2006, 201 – 5. 88 Cf., however, [Theocr.] 8.33 – 60, structured in elegiac couplets, probably under the influence of either elegy or epigram, cf. Hubbard 1998, 35; see also Reitzenstein 1893, 189 – 90, Bignone 1934, 81, 87. For the more Callimachean metrical character of this hexametric poetry (late Greek pastoral) in relation to the Theocritean model, cf. Reed 2006, 216. 89 Cf. mainly Reed 1997, 31 – 6, 2006, 216; see also Trovati 2001, 55 – 8. 90 Cf. Gutzwiller 1991, 176, Hubbard 1998, 37 – 8. 91 For this fragment as part of a possible pastoral speech of the comast in fr. 11, cf. Reed 1997, 14, 51 – 2 and n.98, 176, 2004, 36 – 8, 2006, 232 and n.69. 92 Bion fr. 3, 4, 14, 17 may also belong to a bucolic song on the story of the Cyclops, although there can be no certainty on the issue, cf. above n.15. 93 A non-pastoral topic (Epithalamios for Achilles and Deidameia) but in a bucolic framework; this is the topic of the song a herdsman delivers in front of his companion, another pastoral figure. One may see in this case, along with Hubbard 1998, 39, an intermingling of ‘a Theocritean bucolic frame with a Theocritean epic inset’, i. e., the mythological story on Achilles in Scyros. 94 Cf. [Theocr.] 20.14 – [Bion] 2.18; for the similarity of the two pastoral passages, cf. Reed 2006, 226 and n.55. On borrowings between late Greek bucolic poems, cf. also Reed 1997, 28, 30, 59.

22

Introduction

shepherdess Acrotime) 95. However, an emphasis on romantic love, to a greater extent than in the Theocritean corpus, is clearly discernible96. In particular, both Bion [Bion] and Moschus [Moschus] exhibit several Theocritean themes, which include: pastoral framing and nomenclature; conversational settings between two bucolic figures (Bion fr. 2 – most likely a dialogue on the seasons between two herdsmen97, Cleodamus and Myrson, fr. 5 – a further dialogue excerpt between two rustics, perhaps differentiated, as it also occasionally happens in the Theocritean corpus, as to age and experience, cf. Reed 1997, 148, [Bion] 2 – featuring Myrson and Lycidas in a pastoral conversation); the making of the pipe (Bion fr. 5); bucolic serenades (Bion fr. 11); singing viewed as both the cause and the symptom of love (Bion fr. 3, cf. also Theocr. 11.1 – 3, 13 – 8 – see also Id. 10.21 – 3); lament of a prominent male figure (E.A., E.B.); references to ‘pastoral succession’ (cf. [Moschus] 3.95 – 7) 98, etc. What is more, the generic terminology of boujokiasl|r, perhaps also in the sense of a ‘bucolic exchange of songs’ (as previously shown in the case of the Theocritean corpus), appears in post-Theocritean Greek pastoral as well (cf. Bion fr. 10.5: boujok_asdom). Relevant instances also include: [Moschus] 3.120: Sijekij|m ti k_caime ja· "d} ti boujoki\feu (of the spurious lament-song ascribed to Moschus, cf. also [Bion] 2.1: Sijek¹m l]kor "d» kica_meim99), [Bion] 2.10. Both E.A. and E.B., although not pastoral in their totality (epitaphios), comprise several pastoral themes. Thus in the E.B. we come across e. g. Bion as a cowherd, v. 11100, the image of Pan (v. 55), the making of panpipes (v. 82), milking (vv. 33, 82), Nymphs as goddesses of the bucolic landscape (vv. 17 – 8), a pastoral pantheon (Apollo, Priapi, Pans, Satyrs, 95 For the pastoral character of these pseudotheocritean idylls within the ‘generic framework’ adopted in the present study, cf. also Bernsdorff 2006, 168 – 71. 96 Cf. Reed 1997, 9; see also 3 ff., 2006, 217. 97 Cf. also Reed 2006, 217. 98 ‘Poetic succession’ as also defined by Hubbard 1998, chapter 1 ‘Poetic Succession and the Genesis of Alexandrian Bucolic’: the explicit recognition of a bucolic figure for a younger one as his worthy successor in the art of singing / producing pastoral song. 99 Cf. also Reed 1997, 7 – 8, 165. 100 For the motif of the herdsman-poet, common in the bucolic genre, see Schmidt 1972, 69 – 92, Nauta 1990, 134 – 6, Hunter 2006, 126 – 7; see also Nauta 2006, 307: ‘In bucolic poetry before Virgil, the herdsman, singer of ‘bucolic’ in the sense of a type of folk song, had come to represent the poet, writer of ‘bucolic’ in the sense of a genre of Hellenistic poetry’ [emphasis mine].

Post-Theocritean Bucolics: The Continuation of a Genre

23

Nymphs, vv. 26 – 9), pathetic fallacy imagery (cf. vv. 2, 5, 23 – 4, 32, etc.101). Significantly, the Muses of the refrain are called Sicilian (cf. also v. 96, where pastoral poetry is also crucially qualified as the ‘Doric Muse’; see also v. 12), all further pointing to the Theocritean debts of the poem102. In the E.A. as well, the bucolic colouring is betrayed by elements such as mountain scenery (the handsome Adonis is situated on the mountains, v. 7, see also vv. 20, 32, 36, 68), the pathetic fallacy motif (hounds woofing around the wounded hero, v. 18, mountains, mountain-springs and trees mourning, vv. 31 – 2, 34, rivers reacting to Aphrodite’s affliction, v. 33, flowers turning red or withering out of pain, vv. 35, 76), the presence of Nymphs presiding over the bucolic life and genre (Nymphs of the mountains weeping over Adonis’ loss, v. 19) and by the refrain-structure of the poem, in imitation of Theocritus’ 1103. Finally, the lament itself can be seen as constituting a programmatic generic theme of the pastoral genre in general (Daphnis, Adonis), also found in E.B. / [Moschus] 3104, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 5.20 – 44. Since lament, at least in the initial stages of pastoral, is always for the death of a beautiful youthful figure, its connection with the genre is easily interpretable as the desire to include yet another motif which is closely allied to nature and nature-related religious beliefs and rituals. The interpretation of figures like Adonis, etc. as personifications of the death and rebirth of nature, the change of seasons, etc. is quite established. The pseudotheocritean idylls are another source of distinctive Theocritean bucolic motifs, in a way which seems to suggest the continuation of a genre. The Theocritean debt can be detected in a) boujokiasl¹r patterns and terminology (8, 9); b) creatures and items like pastoral animals (sheep, goats, bulls, cows and oxen and their herdsmen105), the cicada and the bee106, pastoral trees like the oak, and plants107, the

101 Cf. also Arland 1937, 43 – 5, Reed 1997, 26 – 7 and Hubbard 1998, 41 – 4. 102 Cf. also Reed 2006, 222 – 3. 103 For the influence of Theocr. 1 on E.A., see especially Porro 1988, 211 – 21. Cf. also Reed 2006, 221. 104 For Bion fr. 1 as belonging to an account of Apollo’s grief over the deceased Hyacinthus, cf. Reed 1997, 28. 105 Cf. 8.1 – 2, 6, 9, 14 – 5, 26 – 7, 35 – 6, 39 – 40, 42 – 3, 45, 48 – 50, 56, 63, 67, 70, 73, 77, 80, 85 – 6, 9.3, 7 – 8, 10, 17, 27.7, 34, 47 – 8, 64, 69 – 71. 106 Cf. 8.45 – 6, 9.31, 34 – 5.

24

Introduction

herdsman’s crook (9.23), the pipe and its fashioning (8.18 – 24), pastoral gods (cf. Pan – 27.21, 36, 51); c) pastoral activities like playing of the pipe or flute and singing108, pasturing, milking and cheese making109, driving the flock (8.73), and of course ‘pastoral love’110 ; d) pastoral scenery like mountain / rocky settings111, the locus amoenus (9.9 – 13) and the pen (27.37 – 8, 45), as well as summer heat112, the ever-present pathetic fallacy – sulp\heia t_m fkym motif (8.41 ff.) and, finally, e) the distinctively priamel form, which abounds in both [Theocr.] 8 and 9 (8.57 – 60, 79 – 80, 9.31 – 6)113. This adhesion of the post-Theocritean pastoral to both Theocritus and Callimachus is also evident on the level of style and metre. For example, one may detect several instances of Theocritean repetition and word order patterns in the later Greek bucolic tradition114. Callimachean influence is also discernible in Bion’s penchant for fleshing out his hexameters mostly with dactyls, as well as in Moschus’ and Bion’s (in the fragments) extended use of the feminine third foot caesura, whereas the incidence of the bucolic caesura in both these late bucolic poets assimilates similar practices of the bucolic Theocritus. A general adherence to Callimachus’ metrical norms, though not without its exceptions, is a further metrical characteristic of later bucolic poetry115. It is thus evident that Callimachus, having a prominent role in the poetics of both Theocritus and Vergil, as will be discussed later, pp. 32 – 4, plays an important role in the metrical outlook of later Greek bucolic poets as well. Interestingly enough, the eighth Bionian fragment, which is a reflection on poetic art, contains a reference to the Callimachean qualities of sweetness (v. 3: "d]a ; for the programmatic notion of sweetness, cf. also Bion fr. 3.3, 9.5, 10.8) and poetic labour 107 Cf. 8.46, 79, cf. also the apple tree – 8.79, the arbutus – 9.11, the ivy – 20.22, the olive tree – 27.11, the elm tree – 27.13, the cypress – 27.46, 58. Cf. also 20.16, 27.10 – rose, 20.23 – celery, 27.10 – grape. 108 Cf. 8.4, 9, 18, 21, 33 – 4, 84 – 5, cf. 9.1, the term boujoki\feo for pastoral song, 8, 32 – 3, 20.26 – 9, 27.13 – 4, 72 – 3. 109 Cf. 8.35 – 40, 41 – 3, 65 – 70, 86 – 7, 9.3 – 5, 27.38, 69. 110 Cf. 8.51 – 60, [Theocr.] 20, here also combined with the motif of the lover’s rusticitas, [Theocr.] 27. 111 Cf. 8.1 – 2, 33, 9.10 – 11, 15 – 6, 20.34 – 6, 39, 27.34. 112 Cf. 8.78, 9.12. 113 Cf. Bernsdorff 2006, 180 and n.58; see also Rosenmeyer 1969, 258. 114 Cf. Reed 1997, 45 – 8, 49 – 52. 115 For a metrical analysis of later bucolics, cf. mainly Reed 1997, 36 – 45; see also Trovati 2001, 51 – 4.

Post-Theocritean Bucolics: The Continuation of a Genre

25

(v. 3: lowhe?m), recalling the Callimachean program proclaimed also by Theocritus in 7.51116. The very same poetological association ("d») is crucially also used of the Sicilian, i. e., bucolic song, that Lycidas is asked to sing in [Bion] 2.1: l]kor "d» kica_meim117. Cf. also [Moschus] 3.120, 124, [Theocr.] 8.76 ff., 9.7 – 8, 20.28: "d» d] loi t¹ l]kisla118. The generic poetological connotations of lek_sdeim (cf. Bion fr. 9.5, 10, – Theocr. 1.2, 7.89) are similar. A distinction between pastoral and erotic poetry appears as early as post-Theocritean pastoral (cf. especially Bion fr. 10, 13). Fr. 13 is thus about a fowler, unable to catch Eros, misunderstood for a bird, with his bird-lime; the old ploughman to whom the young bird-catcher turns to for help, his former teacher in the techne of fowling, advises the boy against hunting this bird, as it will eventually come into sight on its own initiative, i. e., when the young fowler reaches adulthood. On the level of meta-poetics, the present excerpt insinuates a dichotomy between pastoral and erotic poetic techne, with the latter belonging to a stage of poetic maturity, after an initial period of ‘love-less’ bucolic poetry. In fr. 10, on the other hand, Aphrodite has the narrator of the excerpt teach Eros to sing bucolic poetry; however, at the end the ‘apprenticeship’ is reversed: it is now Eros who teaches the pastoral poet his 1qyt}ka, i. e., love-poems (see also chapter 10, p. 334 – 5). The fragment in question also hints at an opposition between bucolic poetry per se and erotic songs119. In the case of the eighth pseudotheocritean idyll one may also find an explicit recognition of a pastoral genre, and, what is more, in terms of its ‘generic relation’ to the elegiac genus. Id. 8 is organised employing the pastoral structure of an exchange of songs between two herdsmen, in this case between Daphnis and Menalcas. The peculiarity of this poem is its binary metrical structure, as the first part consists of a song exchange in elegiac couplets (vv. 33 – 60) and the second part of an exchange in hexameters (vv. 63 – 80). The poem has thus been compellingly viewed as a ‘generic dialogue’ between elegy and bucolic poetry, with Menalcas standing for the elegiac genre of Hermesianax, and Daphnis, proclaimed as the winner of this song-contest by the anony116 117 118 119

Cf. also Reed 1997, 154. For the programmatic character of the opening of [Bion] 2, cf. Reed 2006, 229. Cf. Bernsdorff 2006, 202. Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 174 – 6; see also Hubbard 1998, 39 – 40.

26

Introduction

mous referee, symbolising Theocritean pastoral poetry120. The ‘generic confrontation’ of this text brings to mind the programmatic pieces of Bion fr. 10 and 13, mentioned above, which also deal with the distinction between pastoral poetry and poetry of love, and thus may also be read as anticipating relevant issues of the tenth Vergilian eclogue in particular.

Vergil vs. Pre-Vergilian Pastoral: The Construction of the Roman Genre It may be argued with some degree of probability that Vergil had at his disposition a collection of Theocritus’ bucolic poetry, probably the one compiled by Artemidorus of Tarsus, dating from the first half of the first century BC121. An epigram of Artemidorus himself (A.P. 9.205) celebrates, by means of a symbolic language, the gathering of the once scattered Bucolic Muses (= bucolic poems) in one flock (= anthology); this compilation may have comprised mainly Theocritus’ bucolic poems (and some non-bucolic ones as well), accompanied by thematically similar poems of other poets. The priority given to Theocritus’ bucolic poems by the tradition following early collections of the poet’s work, and the similar footing accorded to pseudotheocritean pastoral idylls and to the bucolic poems of Moschus and Bion imply the gradual (re)-formation of the pastoral genre up to Vergil’s lifetime122. Vergil thus has to work against the backdrop of a literary genre ‘under construction’, in its cradle in Theocritus123, yet elaborated and 120 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 34 – 5; see also Van Sickle 1976, 25 – 6. For Daphnis and Menalcas of the ninth idyll as also symbolising Theocritus and Hermesianax, see again Hubbard 1998, 35 – 7. For a refutation of these views, cf. Bernsdorff 2006, 178 – 9 and n.51. For Daphnis as the ‘superior singer’ in [Theocr.] 9, cf. White 1980, 48 – 50. Rossi 2000, 245 – 6 sees the elegiac metrical unit in [Theocr.] 8 as deriving from the strophic organisation of pastoral poems, already found in the Theocritean corpus. 121 For Theocritus’ editions in Vergil’s time, see especially Gutzwiller 1996, 119 – 48. 122 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 27 – 8. As Hunter 2006, 116 puts it: ‘Theocritus’ fiction is of a new world of musical herdsmen, Virgil’s of a now familiar, textual ‘genre’’. 123 For Theocritean imitation and allusions as a means Vergil makes use of for establishing the pastoral ‘generic code’ of the Eclogues, cf. especially the concise discussion of Muecke 1975, 169 – 80.

Vergil vs. Pre-Vergilian Pastoral: The Construction of the Roman Genre

27

developed by the post-Theocritean bucolic tradition124. With Vergil however there comes a crucial shift in the history of the bucolic genre: for with the Eclogues, a corpus originally significantly entitled Bucolica 125, often read in the relevant rich bibliography as a ‘self-reflexive’126 continuous work127, pastoral moves from Greece to Rome128. Furthermore, Vergilian pastoral demonstrably rests on the foundations of sophisticated textual pastoral precedents129 and develops ‘generic features’ associated with the Roman reality of Vergil’s time130. Thus, whereas Theocritus’ landscape secures the idyllic "suw_a, politics and history, and in particular the side-effects of the land confiscations following the battle of Philippi in 42 BC, shatter, in Vergil, the peaceful living conditions of the Theocritean bucolic poetry, which are such important prerequisites for the construction of pastoral song131, while the overall pessimistic / negative tone escalates in the second half of the book of the eclogues132. Therefore, Vergilian pastoral deals with ‘pastoral space’ mainly in terms of its ‘deconstruction’ rather 124 For Vergil (6th eclogue) and the E.B., cf. especially Paschalis 1995, 617 – 21. 125 For the more common term ‘eclogue’, found for the first time in Donatus’ Vita Vergili, and its gradual semantic overlapping with the meaning of ‘pastoral poem’, cf. especially Cooper 1974, 363 – 76. 126 For Vergilian pastoral as a ‘stronger’ version of pastoral in relation to Theocritean bucolics (according to Berger’s 1984, 2 – 5 distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ pastoral / ‘meta-pastoral’) on the basis of the Eclogues’ intense ‘self-reflexivity’, cf. especially Papanghelis 2006, 394 – 5 and n.60. 127 Cf. especially Van Sickle 1978. See also Maury 1944, 71 – 147, Otis 1964, 128 – 43, Rudd 1976, 119 – 44, Coleiro 1979, 94 – 101. 128 Cf. Breed 2006, 95, Hunter 2006, 127, Nauta 2006, 308 – 10. 129 Cf. Hunter 2006, 124. 130 As in the case of the Theocritean corpus, one may distinguish between pastoral and less pastoral eclogues within the Vergilian corpus as well; the last-mentioned deal less than the rest with herdsmen’ s life and interests. Thus Servius (Buc. prooem. Thilo-Hagen 3.3.20 – 1) speaks about seven merae rusticae eclogues, against three, where Vergil ‘transcends’ pastoral song, namely 4 and 6 with the third unmentioned; for the tenth eclogue, with its ‘elegiac propensities’, as the third less pastoral Vergilian eclogue according to Servius, cf. also Jenkyns 1998, 154. 131 For this non-Theocritean engagement with contemporary history, politics as discerned in the Vergilian bucolics, cf. also Putnam 1970, 79 – 80, Wright (1983)–1999, 119, Van Sickle 2000, 43, Breed 2006, 101 – 2, Hunter 2006, 118 – 9, 125 – 6, Skoie 2006, 303 – 8. See also Boyle 1975, 187 – 203. 132 Cf. especially Becker 1955, 317 – 28, Otis 1964, 130 – 1, Van Sickle 1978, 30 – 1.

28

Introduction

than its omnipresence133, while ‘dialectic polarisations’ between privileged ones and losers (Tityrus vs. Meliboeus in Verg. Ecl. 1, etc.134) function to all intents and purposes as part of Vergil’s ‘programmatic pastoral signature’135 from the very first programmatic eclogue. Yet even in this case, one is still faced with continuity in (pastoral) motifs as well as in linguistic / stylistic, metrical and narrative techniques. These can be taken as pointing to the formation of a genre in evolution, despite occasional divergences attributable to a general Vergilian penchant for turning Theocritean marginal motifs into his main focus136. Vergil’s first eclogue is of crucial importance with reference to the development of pastoral in Roman terms, due to its initial programmatic positioning in the corpus of the Roman bucolics as well as to the main intertext of its opening (Theocr. 1) 137. It stands as a clear counterpart of the Greek text, ‘self-reflexively’ dealing with the beginnings of a genre138 and having a clear programmatic value reflecting upon the new pastoral generic formation (in Roman terms this time); cf. especially Wright’s 1983 shaping paper139. In general, several of the pastoral ‘generic markers’ which first occurred in Theocritean and post-Theocritean Greek bucolic poetry are to recur in the Vergilian pastoral corpus, though occasionally (slightly) altered and in some cases expanded. For example, the pathetic fallacy is by no means absent from the Eclogues 140, but in Vergilian pastoral one might observe a new kind of the pathetic fallacy motif, in the 133 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 46. 134 For a reading of Meliboeus’ departure in ‘generic terms’, i. e., as symbolising Vergil’s innovative tendencies in opposition to Tityrus, who is more traditional in his ‘bucolic outlook’, cf. Breed 2006, 102; see also Van Sickle 2000, 48 – 9. For the various allegorical readings of the poem’s main figures, see especially the brief account in Breed 2006, 102 – 3, 173 and nn.26 – 9. 135 Formulation of Connolly 2001, 92. 136 Cf. especially Hubbard 1998, 49 – 50. 137 Cf. especially Pöschl 1964, 10 – 11, Alpers 1996, 21 – 6, Wright (1983)–1999, 117 – 8, Schmidt 1987, 29 – 36, Perkell 1990, 177, Hunter 2006, 115 – 6. 138 Cf. Breed 2006, 96, 2006b, 93. 139 References to this seminal work follow its reprint in Hardie 1999, Wright (1983)–1999, 116 – 71. For the relation between eclogue 1 and the programmatic seventh Theocritean idyll, cf. also Van Sickle 1976, 23 – 4, 1978, 119 – 23. See also Du Quesnay 1981, 46 – 7, Wright (1983)–1999, 148, Hardie 2006, 288, Nauta 2006, 307 – 8. 140 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 5.20 – 8, 6.27 – 30, 7.59 – 60, 8.2 – 4, 9.57 – 8, 10.13 – 30; see also above on the pathetic fallacy motif in Theocritus, p. 16. For the pathetic fallacy as a bucolic ‘generic marker’, cf. also Breed 2006, 104.

Vergil vs. Pre-Vergilian Pastoral: The Construction of the Roman Genre

29

way the echo often functions as the sign of nature’s reaction to human things (cf. Ecl. 8.22 – 4, 10.8, 58 – 9, yet cf. E.B. 30 – 1) 141. Similarly, several instances of an idealised landscape (locus amoenus) occur in the Eclogues 142, as is also the case with the generic pastoral shade143, one of the main constituents of the locus amoenus, protecting sitting or reclining pastoral performers from the scorching summer heat144. What is more, in line with Theocritus who shows preference for a specific tree (the pine tree) as a symbol of his pastoral poetry, Vergil too singles out the fagus, which is the Latin cognate and near-homonym of the Theocritean vgc|r145, and which thus takes the place of the Theocritean pine tree146 as the tree emblem of pastoral production. Vergil’s pastoral landscape, like that of his Greek predecessor, is populated by a gamut of pastoral trees147, plants, fruits and flowers148

141 For echo as a Vergilian pastoral contribution, cf. Breed 2006, 75; see also Desport 1952, 63 – 91, Rosenmeyer 1969, 148 – 50, Boyle 1977, 121 – 31. 142 Cf. especially Coleman 1977, 22 – 3. See Verg. Ecl. 1.46 – 58, Papanghelis 2006, 378 and n.23 on the ‘exemplary pastoralism of these lines’, 3.55 – 7, 7.9 – 13, 9.39 – 43, 10.40 – 3; cf. also the relevant orphic syndrome of Ecl. 8.1 – 5. Alpers 1986, 46 ascribes to Vergil the paternity of what Rosenmeyer 1969, 190 calls locus uberrimus, ‘appeal[ing] with its ripeness, its fullness, it (sic) luxuriant beauty’. 143 Cf. Verg Ecl. 1.1, 4, 14, 52, 2.9, 5.3, 5, 40, 7.1, 10, 9.20. 144 At the end of the tenth eclogue however, vv. 75 – 7, i. e., when Vergil finally decides to turn his back to the pastoral genre in favour of loftier poetic aspirations, the shade, as a ‘generic marker’ of a genre to be abandoned, is negatively depicted as harming both humans and vegetation; cf. also Van Sickle 1986, 31, Gale 2000, 161 and n.49 (cf. also Verg. G. 1.121). 145 Cf. Wright (1983)–1999, 118. Cf. also Arist. 1.10.57: vgco?r rpojah^lemor C ptek]air, as a possible Greek model in Vergil for the cognate fagus, Clausen 1994, 65. 146 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 48 – 9. Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.1, 2.3, 3.12, 37, 5.13, 9.9. 147 Hazel trees (corylus), Ecl. 1.14, 5.3, 21, 7.63 – 4, arbute (arbutus), Ecl. 3.82, 7.46, oaks (quercus), Ecl. 1.17, 4.30, 6.28, 7.13, 8.53, ilex (ilex), Ecl. 6.54, 7.1, 9.15, cypresses (cupressus), Ecl. 1.25, junipers (iuniperus), Ecl. 7.53, 10.76, poplars (populus), Ecl. 7.61, 66, 9.41, pine trees (pinus), Ecl. 1.38, 4.38, 7.24, 65, 68, 8.22, willows (salix, see also salictum), Ecl. 1.54, 78, 3.65, 83, 5.16, 10.40, olive trees (oliva), Ecl. 5.16, elms (ulmus), Ecl. 1.58, 2.70, 5.3, 10.67, ashes (fraxinus), Ecl. 7.65, 68, cf. also ornus at 6.71, firs (abies), Ecl. 7.66, yews (taxus), Ecl. 9.30, laurels (laurus), Ecl. 2.54, 3.63, 6.83, 7.62, 64, 8.13, 82 – 3, 10.13, myrtles (myrtus), Ecl. 2.54, 7.6, 62, 64, alders (alnus), Ecl. 6.63, 8.53, 10.74, cf. also vines / grapes, Ecl. 1.73, 2.70, 3.11, 38, 4.29, 40, 5.6 – 7, 32, 7.58, 61, 9.42, 49, 10.36, 40, pear trees (pirus), Ecl. 1.73, 9.50, orchards (arbustum), Ecl. 1.39, 2.13, 4.2, 5.64; see also 3.10.

30

Introduction

as well as animals (sheep149, goats150, cows, steers and bulls151, oxen152, various flocks153, etc.), although, in the domain of trees and plants at least, the Roman pastoral poet does not seem to owe much to Theocritus154. Besides, the Vergilian landscape is clearly mountainous, yet more wooded in comparison to its Theocritean model155.

148 Rushes (iuncus, carectum), Ecl. 1.48, 2.72, 3.20, twigs (vimen), Ecl. 2.72, gorses (ruscus/um), Ecl. 7.42, darnels (lolium), Ecl. 5.37, oat straws (avena), Ecl. 5.37, thistles (carduus), Ecl. 5.39, thorns (paliurus), Ecl. 5.39, (acanthus), Ecl. 3.45, 4.20, shrubs (virgultum), Ecl. 10.7, hibiscus (hibiscum), Ecl. 2.30, 10.71, osiers (viburnum), Ecl. 1.25, ivy (hedera), Ecl. 3.39, 4.19, 7.25, 38, 8.13, foxgloves (baccar), Ecl. 4.19, 7.27, brambles (sentis), Ecl. 4.29, reeds (harundo), Ecl. 7.12, dwarf elders (ebulum), Ecl. 10.27, barley grains (hordeum), Ecl. 5.36, garlic (alium), Ecl. 2.11, corn (arista), Ecl. 1.69, 4.28, parsley (apium), Ecl. 6.68, lucerne / clover (cytisus/um), Ecl. 1.78, 2.64, 9.31, 10.30, soft leafage (frons), Ecl. 1.80, 10.30, thyme (thymum), Ecl. 5.77, 7.37, cf. also 2.11 serpyllum, apples (pomum, malum), Ecl. 1.37, 80, 3.64, 71, 8.37, 53, quinces (malum), Ecl. 2.51, plums (prunum), Ecl. 2.53, strawberries (fragum), Ecl. 3.92, chestnuts (castanea), Ecl. 1.81, 2.52, cf. also 7.53, mulberries (morum), Ecl. 6.22, narcissus / daffodils (narcissus), Ecl. 2.48, 5.38, 8.53, tamarisks (myrica), Ecl. 4.2, 6.10, 8.54, 10.13, lilies (lilium), Ecl. 2.45, 10.25, fennel flowers (ferula), Ecl. 10.25, cf. also 2.48 anethum, violets (viola), Ecl. 2.47, 5.38, 10.39, hyacinths (vaccinium, hyacinthus), Ecl. 2.18, 50, 3.63, 6.53, 10.39, roses (rosa), Ecl. 5.17, the Celtic nard (saliunca), Ecl. 5.17, the Egyptian bean (colocasium), Ecl. 4.20, the Assyrian spice (amomum), Ecl. 4.25; see also 3.89, privets (ligustrum), Ecl. 2.18, poppies (papaver), Ecl. 2.47, cassias (casia), Ecl. 2.49, marigolds (caltha), Ecl. 2.50. 149 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.8, 21, 49, 2.21, 33, 42, 3.3, 5 – 6, 94 – 5, 98, 103, 4.43, 45, 6.5, 85, 7.3, 8.52, 10.16, 18, 68. 150 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.12, 22, 74, 77, 2.30, 41, 63 – 4, 3.8, 17, 22 – 3, 34, 82, 91, 96, 4.21, 5.12, 7.3, 7, 9, 8.33, 9.6, 23, 25, 62, 10.7, 30, 77. 151 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.45, 2.66, 3.29, 48, 77, 85, 100, 109, 4.41, 5.33, 6.46, 60, 7.11, 39, 44, 8.2, 85, 9.31. 152 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.9, 45, 5.25, 6.58. 153 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.15, 50, 74, 2.8, 20, 30, 3.1, 6, 20, 32, 34, 83, 101, 5.33, 44, 60, 87, 6.45, 55, 59, 7.2, 7, 36, 47, 8.15, 10.17, 36. Cf. also dogs, Ecl. 1.22, 3.67, 8.28, 10.57, stags, Ecl. 1.59, 2.29, 5.60, 7.30, 8.28, boars, Ecl. 2.59, 3.75, 5.76, 7.29, 10.56, lynxes, Ecl. 8.3, griffins, Ecl. 8.27, horses, Ecl. 8.27, wolves, Ecl. 2.63, 3.80, 5.60, 7.52, 8.52, 97, 9.54, wild beasts in general, Ecl. 6.27, 10.52, lions, Ecl. 2.63, 4.22, 5.27, tigers, Ecl. 5.29, foxes, Ecl. 3.91 / insects: bees, Ecl. 1.54, 5.77, 10.30, the cicada, Ecl. 2.13, 5.77 / birds: wood pigeons, Ecl. 1.57, 3.69, doves, Ecl. 9.13, turtle-doves, Ecl. 1.58, owls, Ecl. 8.55, swans, Ecl. 7.38, 8.55, 9.29, 36, eagles, Ecl. 9.13, ravens, Ecl. 9.15, geese, Ecl. 9.36 / snakes, Ecl. 3.93, 4.24, 8.71 / dolphins, Ecl. 8.56. 154 Cf. Clausen 1994, xxviii–xxix. 155 Cf. also Cartault 1897, 454, Clausen 1994, xxvi.

Vergil vs. Pre-Vergilian Pastoral: The Construction of the Roman Genre

31

Pastoral / agricultural accessories156 as well as bucolic and agricultural everyday activities form an integral part of Vergilian pastoral landscape (milking and pasturing158, cheese making, cf. Ecl. 1.34, 81, hunting, cf. Ecl. 2.29, 3.75, ploughing, cf. Ecl. 2.66, shutting off the springs, cf. Ecl. 3.111). However, all these tasks usually function again as a simple foil for the basic pastoral occupation, which in Vergil too is pastoral song, usually the outcome of the meeting of two pastoral figures. Pastoral song is often brought to an end with the falling of dusk, which frequently leads to the resumption of menial pastoral activities159. Music in the Vergilian pastoral universe is represented by a whole system of pastoral musical organs, in the model of Theocritus: avena160, calami 161, fistula162, cicuta 163, harundo (cf. Ecl. 6.8), tibia 164. There are instances of solo performances, but in these cases it is possible to detect a ‘generic deviation’ towards other literary genres, as will be discussed passim in the book. This is especially valid for the second eclogue, where Corydon’s solo performance (cf. also Clausen 1994, 65 – 6) along with the discourse he constructs betrays his ‘generic movement’ towards the urban elegiac world165. Amoebaean song also exists in the eclogues, and can again take the shape of a singing contest (Ecl. 3, 7) or of a sociable song-swap (Ecl. 5, 8, 9). Another bucolic motif which finds its place in the Vergilian pastoral corpus is eros, as several eclogues center on this subject matter (mainly 2, 8 and 10). However, the discerning reader may trace a movement to157

156 The herdsmen’s olive staff, cf. Ecl. 8.16, the humble pastoral cottage (tugurium), Ecl. 1.68, cf. also 1.82, 2.29, the pen, cf. Ecl. 1.8, 33, 3.80, 6.60, 7.39, the herdsman’s crook, cf. Ecl. 2.30, 5.88 – 90, cf. also the harrow, the pruning hook, Ecl. 4.40 and 3.11 – a pruning knife. 157 For the increased agricultural / georgic element in Vergilian pastoral as compared to Theocritus, cf. especially the relevant discussion in chapters 4, p. 178, 5, pp. 202 – 3; see also Hubaux 1927, 72 – 97, Dehon 1993, 203, Hunter 2006, 119. 158 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.20 – 1, 48 – 50, 75 – 8, 2.30, 3.5 – 6, 20, 30, 96 – 9, 5.12, 24 – 5, 6.4 – 5, 7.2 – 3, 15, 9.23 – 5, 10.18. 159 Cf. also Papanghelis 2006, 400. 160 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.2, 10.51. See also Smith 1970, 497 – 510. 161 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.10, 2.32, 34, 5.2, 48, 6.69, 8.24. 162 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 2.37, 3.22, 25, 7.24, 8.33, 10.34. 163 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 5.85; see also 2.36. 164 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.21, 25, 31, 36, 42, 46, 51, 57, 61. 165 Cf. Coleman 1977, 107 – 9, Papanghelis 1995, 43 ff.; see also Papanghelis 1999, 47 – 8, 2006, 400 – 1.

32

Introduction

wards other literary genres, mainly elegy, in all these cases; eros thus becomes the pivot around which Vergil experiments in discussing issues of ‘generic deviation’ and ‘versatility’. Finally, the Vergilian pastoral pantheon generally comprises the deities of the Theocritean bucolic corpus (cf. in more detail chapter 4, pp. 157 – 60). Further pastoral motifs include: the motif of the poetic succession (cf. Ecl. 5.49), the lament for a distinguished member of the pastoral community (cf. Ecl. 5.20 – 44), the fashioning of the pipe166, and the motif of the scorching summer heat167, closely associated with the pastoral shade and the production of pastoral song. Stylistic pointers include again adynata (cf. Ecl. 1.59 – 63, 8.26 – 8, 52 – 6) and the priamel form (cf. Ecl. 2.63 – 5, 3.80 – 1, 82 – 3, 5.16 – 8, 32 – 4, 76 – 8). Coming now to the meta-linguistic bucolic features detectable in Vergil, it has often been pointed out in the relevant bibliography that, capitalizing on Theocritus’ programmatic poetic techniques, Vergil too endeavours to warn the reader about the poetic line he is following in composing a new Roman genre, i. e., his pastoral poems, from the very beginning of his first eclogue. Catchwords alluding to the Theocritean model168 and / or denoting Callimachean poetic attitudes of the neoteric circles, which he too adopts169, and referring to the basic notion of Callimachean slenderness (kept|r, keptak]or cf. Aet. 1.11 Pf., 1.24 Pf.) abound in the corpus of the Vergilian pastoral, starting from the very opening of the first eclogue. Thus the pastoral pipe, the symbol of bucolic poetry, is tenuis (v. 2)170 and Tityrus, having secured his pastoral permanence, is presented as lentus sub umbra (v. 4). Thus, in Roman terms, Vergil poetically aligns himself with the neoteric movement, clearly aspiring to Callimachus’ aestheticism and poetic sensibilities. Vergil’s neoteric preferences are further divulged through the rewording of Lucr. 5.8 – 9 in vv. 6 – 7171, deus nobis haec otia fecit. namque erit ille mihi Cf. Verg. Ecl. 2.32 – 3, 36 – 8, 3.25 – 6. Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 2.10, 13, 3.98, 5.45 – 7, 7.47 – 8. Cf. e. g. Cartault 1897, 346, Van Sickle 1986, 38 – 9. Cf. e. g. Skoie 2006, 308 – 10. See also Otis 1964, 99 – 105, Farrell 1991, 278 – 314. 170 For the Callimachean undertones of tenuis, cf. also Reitzenstein 1931, 34 – 7, Schmidt 1972, 21 – 6, Ross 1975, 26 – 7, Clausen 1987, 3, Papanghelis 1995, 138 – 9, 184; see also Alpers 1979, 75 – 6. 171 Cf. also Wright (1983)–1999, 130. For Lucretian allusions in Verg. Ecl. 1, cf. also also Van Sickle 2000, 35 – 8, 53 – 5, Breed 2000, 3 – 20, 2006, 97 – 101, Hunter 2006, 118.

166 167 168 169

Vergil vs. Pre-Vergilian Pastoral: The Construction of the Roman Genre

33

semper deus. He is alluding to Octavian, who as a god-figure secures the continuation of pastoral life and song, see also Ecl. 5.64. Vergilian reworking of Lucretian originals also include Ecl. 1.1: sub tegmine fagi altering the Lucretian sub tegmine caeli, 2.663172, 1.2 modeled on Lucr. 4.589, 6.8 on Lucr. 5.1398, and 10.75 – 6 on Lucr. 6.783 – 5173. Since Lucretius is one of the major poetic models of the Roman neoteric movement, Vergil thus proves himself a follower of Roman Callimachean poetic attitudes as well as a conscious disciple of the neoteric trend. The adhesion to Callimachus and the aversion towards the epic genre in favour of pastoral becomes even clearer in the case of the sixth eclogue, often heralded as a further programmatic piece, due to the ‘proem in the middle’, vv. 1 – 12, the incipit of the second half of the corpus, and at the same time functioning as a poetic history of the Roman Callimacheanism174. Vergil here is explicitly aware of the fact that he introduces a new poetic form in Latin: vv. 1 – 2, prima Syracosio dignata est ludere versu / nostra nec erubuit silvas habitare Thalea 175, which he professes to abandon at the end of the tenth eclogue (vv. 70 – 7), cf. also Ecl. 4.1: Sicelides Musae, where once more Vergil alludes to his Theocritean connections176. The reader is once more reminded here (Ecl. 6) of the Theocritean and Callimachean nature of this new literary formation; thus Syracosio, the very opening of the eclogue (v. 1), alludes to Theocritus, whereas vv. 3 – 8, in obvious imitation of the Callimachean prologue of the Aetia, present Vergil as a 172 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 49. See also Cic. Arat. 34.47. 173 Cf. also Hardie 2006, 275 – 300, especially 276 – 8, 2009, 13 – 40. For Lucretius and Vergil’s Eclogues, cf. also Castelli 1966, 313 – 42, 1967, 14 – 39, 176 – 216, Galinsky 1965, 165 – 8, Van Sickle 1978, 88 – 9. 174 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 131 – 72. The poet thus declines reges et proelia as well as tristia bella, the latter being an epic ‘generic marker’ in Hor. Ars 73 – 4 as well, cf. Hunter 2006, 117 – 8 and n.10. 175 Cf. also Wright (1983)–1999, 130 – 1. For the well-known Callimachean reading of the proem in the sixth Vergilian eclogue, cf. mainly Wimmel 1960, 133 – 42, Putnam 1970, 196 – 7, Schmidt 1972, 245 – 6, Berg 1974, 181 – 2, Clausen 1987, 2 – 3, Papanghelis 1995, 133 – 41. Thomas 1998, 669 – 76 claimed that the whole of the eclogue should be read as not uttered by the poet but rather by the fictional character Tityrus; yet, even if one reads here the voice of a Vergilian figure, the passage is still revealing concerning Vergil’s poetic credo; see also Hunter 2006, 129. 176 Cf. also Hardie 1998, 6, Verg. Ecl. 10.51. For a comprehensive research of Theocritus’ imitation by Vergil, see especially Posch 1969, Garson 1971, 188 – 203, Lipka 2001, 29 – 65 and passim.

34

Introduction

Roman Callimachus, rejecting at Apollo’s instigation epic in favour of bucolic poetry, i. e., poetry of the neoteric kind, v. 8: agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam (cf. also Ecl. 1.2177). Once again the programmatic catchword tenuis qualifies the pastoral poet’s reed as slender; and the verb meditor further suggests the notion of the refined poetic art as the result of long-lasting and attentive labour, constituting a further basic Callimachean notion, as expressed by Aratus’ s}mtomor !cqupm_g (Call. Ep. 27.4 Pf. vs. s}lbokom !cqupm_gr) and further suggested by Theocritus 1nep|mesa, cf. Id. 7.51. Such Callimachean notions often creep up in the eclogues, cf. also 1.10: ludere…calamo…agresti, 5.85: fragili…cicuta and especially in the last part of the tenth eclogue, also programmatic in nature, v. 71: gracili…hibisco, (cf. also Serv. ad 10.71)178. Thus a distinctive aim of this study is to examine the implications of anti-Callimachean, anti-neoteric ideas that also ‘sneak into’ the pastoral text and to relate them with instances of possible ‘generic frustration’. ‘Generic frustration’ refers in the present work to the informed reader’s ‘failed expectations’ concerning the features or motifs a work belonging to a specific genre should contain. A clear opposition between two distinct genres (pastoral, elegy), one functioning as a by-form of the other (for the term, cf. Hubbard 1998, 139), has clearly been acknowledged by previous research especially in the case of the tenth Vergilian eclogue (cf. Conte 1986, 100 – 29, Papanghelis 1995, 64 – 87) 179, which deals with the pastoral ‘deviation’ 177 Cf. Van Sickle 1978, 88 – 9. 178 Cf. Wright (1983)–1999, 122 – 3. For the last part of the tenth eclogue also alluding to Callimachus (fr. 112 Pf.), cf. also Breed 2006a, 346 and n.51. 179 ‘Generic opposition / interaction’ between pastoral and elegy has been the subject or the research basis of several compelling studies; this is mainly evident in the case of the second, the eighth and, above all, the tenth eclogue, where eros is the main subject matter, with obvious ‘generic implications’. Cf. chiefly Kidd 1964, 54 – 64, Kenney 1983, 44 – 59, Chwalek 1990, 304 – 20, Perkell 1996, 128 – 40, Hardie 2002, 121 – 8, Torlone 2002, 204 – 21, Harrison 2007, 59 – 74. What is more, it has also been suggested that elegiac lines from Gallus’ elegiac poetry have somehow been incorporated within the pastoral text of the tenth Vergilian eclogue, see also Servius ad 10.46. Critics vary as to the weight of Gallan elegiac influence they are prepared to accept in the case of the tenth eclogue. Skutsch (cf. 1901, 2 – 27, 1906, 155 – 92) reads the poem as a simple ‘Kataloggedicht’ consisting of several quotations from Gallan elegy (cf. also Ross 1975, 85 – 106), nowadays an outdated view; see Hubbard 1998, 136 and n.180. For Gallan elegy in Verg. Ecl. 10, cf. also Kidd 1964, 61, Kelly 1977, 17 – 20, Yardley 1980, 48 – 51, Hinds 1983, 46 – 7, Conte 1986, 124 and n.27, Kennedy 1987, 48 – 9, Perkell 1996, 133 – 5, Gagliardi 2003. Cf.

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

35

of the elegiac Gallus. Although the poet strives to alleviate his elegiac pathos by immersing himself in the ideal pastoral erotic "suw_a, his aim is not fulfilled, as by the end of the eclogue he comes to realise his inability to cure his elegiac defects by means of the assets belonging to another poetic genre180. This ‘generic opposition’ however has clearly been foreshadowed in post-Theocritean bucolic (cf. Bion fr. 10, 13), where erotic poetry and bucolic song are up to a point distinguished (cf. sub-chapter 3 of the introduction, pp. 25 – 6). Vergil, in sum, often experiments with the ‘generic boundaries’ of his work, either towards other forms of the genus tenue (like elegy) or towards loftier generic forms, the genus grande (namely epic but also tragedy, see especially the ‘generic transcendence / change’ of Ecl. 4181 and 8 – see passim in the chapters to follow and chapter 3 in particular, pp. 125 ff.). From this perspective, it is one of the aims of the present work to examine such instances in the case of Vergilian amoebaean songs and investigate the ways this ‘generic evaluation’ may produce further meaning.

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’ Post-Vergilian pastoral refers in this study to the seven eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus, the two Einsiedeln Eclogues and the four pastorals of Marcus Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus; thus I shall focus on the ‘generic development’ of pastoral up to late antiquity leaving out bucolic genre in both Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Aim of this part is to examine the ways post-Vergilian amoebaean pastoral ‘deviates’ from the previous ‘pastoral norm’ and what this entails as far as the pastoral ‘generic evolution’ is concerned.

also Whitaker 1988, 454 – 8 claiming that Gallus did not write any pastoral elegies. 180 Cf. also Solodow 1977, 769 – 70, Papanghelis 2006, 401 – 2. See also Harrison 2007, 70 – 4 who, however, sees in the case of the tenth eclogue an instance of ‘generic enrichment’, despite the final return of Gallus to the elegiac ‘generic realm’ and the very fact that elegy and pastoral are clearly shown as non-merging. According to Harrison, through the means of the ‘guest elegiac mode’ the pastoral ‘boundaries have undoubtedly been extended and the pastoral genre lastingly increased’ – p. 74. 181 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 162, Van Sickle 1978, 61 – 3, 132, Hubbard 1998, 76 – 86, Breed 2006a, 346 – 7.

36

Introduction

Calpurnius Siculus Calpurnius is the second Roman pastoral poet following Vergil; his seven bucolics182 should in all probability be dated to Nero’s time (the view adopted here) 183, although his chronology constitutes a trouble182 For the arrangement of Calpurnian pastorals, an imitation of the ‘concentric ring structure’ (cf. Hubbard 1998, 152) discerned in the Vergilian pastoral corpus, cf. especially Grant 1965, 71, Cancik 1965, 22 – 3, Korzeniewski 1972, 214 – 6, 1974, 923 – 4, Leach 1975, 216 – 7, Friedrich 1976, 12 – 5, Vinchesi 1996, 51, 2009a, 573 and n.11, Hubbard 1998, 152 – 3, Lana 1998, 823 – 4, Fey-Wickert 2002, 14 – 6, Mayer 2006, 456 – 7. Cf. also Davis 1987, 32 – 8, 49 – 50, who reads the fourth eclogue as the structural separator of the realistic last three eclogues from the idealising Calp. 1 – 3; see also Schröder 1991, 9 – 13. As to the number (7) of the Calpurnian Eclogues, Korzeniewski 1972, 216 rightly points out the apollonian associations of the figure, crucial for the Apollo image of the emperor Nero; cf. also Korzeniewski 1974, 924 – 5, Vinchesi 1996, 51, 2009a, 573 and n.11, Simon 2007, 44. 183 Cf. Haupt 1875, 358 – 406, Skutsch 1897, 1401 – 6, Postgate 1902, 38 – 40, Ferrara 1905, 15 ff., Butler 1909, 151 – 2, Summers 1920, 90 – 1, Chiavola 1921, 7 ff., Cesareo 1931, 7 – 8, Wendel 1933, 35, De Sipio 1935, 7 ff., Manni 1938, 113 – 4, Bardon 1968, 226, 1972, 9 – 10, Toynbee 1942, 87, 90, Giarratano 1943, V, Momigliano 1944, 97 – 9, Levi 1949, 76, Rogers 1953, 241, 243, Verdière 1954, 15, 1985, 1849 – 50, 1992, 34, 1993, 349 – 98, Theiler 1956, 568 – 70, Duff 1960, 264 – 5, Grant 1965, 71, Lana 1998, 823 – 7, Cizek 1968, 147 – 8, 1972, 371, Keene 1969, 2 – 14, Rosenmeyer 1969, 20, 123, Spadaro 1969, 5, Scheda 1969, 60 – 5, Korzeniewski 1971, 1 ff., Cupaiuolo 1973, 191 – 2, Fuchs 1973, 228, Leach 1973, 53, Joly 1974, 42, Gnilka 1974, 124, Messina 1975, 8, 14, Bartalucci 1976, 85 – 6, Friedrich 1976, 8, Perutelli 1976, 781, Cooper 1977, 4, Kettemann 1977, 99, Grimal 1978, 163, Williams 1978a, 276, 299, Narducci 1979, 26, Mayer 1980, 175 – 6, 2005, 234, 2005a, 67, 2006, 454 – 6, Townend 1980, 166 – 74, Casaceli 1982, 85 – 103, Wiseman 1982, 57 – 67, Gagliardi 1984, 10 – 2, Griffin 1984, 37, 272 and n.2, Küppers 1985, 341, Sullivan 1985, 51 – 2 and n.63, Amat 1988, 75, 1991, vii–viii, xix–xxiv, 1998, 193, Effe – Binder 1989, 113, Mackie 1989, 9, Coleman 1990, 52 and n.69, Di Salvo 1990, 21 – 2, Langholf 1990, 355, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 151, Pearce 1990, 11, Schröder 1991, 17 and n.7, Krautter 1992, 188 – 201 (cf. especially p. 189), Fugmann 1992, 202 – 7, Vinchesi 1992, 151, 1996, 5 – 6, 12 – 3, 2002, 139 and n.2, 2009a, 572 and n.7, Fear 1993, 43, 1994, 269 and n.3, Dihle 1994, 108, Vozza 1994, 76 and n.22, Römer 1994, 98, Slater 1994a, 550 and n.4, Beato 1995, 626, 2003, 83, Esposito 1996, 32 – 4, 2009, 33, Fantham 1996, 161, Martin 1996, 18, 2003, 73 and n.2, Paschalis 1996, 135, Schubert 1998, 44 ff., Merfeld 1999, 71 – 2 and passim, Schäfer 2001, 139, Newlands 2002, 143 and n.89, Ruggeri 2002, 201 – 43, Fey-Wickert 2002, 11, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 7, Shotter 2008, 192, Monella 2009, 77 and n.26. For a very good, yet not exhaustive, account

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

37

some issue, with several scholars expressing their doubts as to the Neronian date or even claiming a later chronology, mainly during third century AD184. Yet, what matters in this study is not Calpurnius’ dating, but his ‘generic outlook’, an issue not crucially affected by the chronology debate. Calpurnius is quite clear about his ‘generic adhesions’ and his sense of belonging to a pastoral genre185, with Vergil as one of its important representatives186, despite a ‘belatedness’ that the Neronian author himof the various views on the chronology of individual Calpurnian eclogues, cf. also Morford 1985, 2027 – 8, Di Salvo 1990, 21 – 4, Schröder 1991, 17 and n.7, Verdière 1993, 349, Esposito 2009, 30 and n.37; see also Gowers 1994, 145: ‘it will always be tempting to claim Calpurnius for a Neronian’. 184 Cf. Champlin 1978, 95 – 110, 1986, 104 – 12 (in the time of Severus Alexander, cf. also Kraffert 1883, 151); Armstrong 1986, 113 – 36 (rejection of the Neronian chronology, based mainly on linguistic, stylistic and metrical criteria; for a refutation of this thesis with some justification, cf. mainly Schröder 1991, 17 and n.7, Horsfall 1997, 166 – 96), see also Armstrong – Champlin 1986, 137 – a postscript to the previous discussion; Ostrand 1984 (Domitian’s reign); Courtney 1987, 148 – 57 (late first century, after Statius), cf. also 2004, 426 – 7; Horsfall 1993, 269 – 70, 1997, 166 – 96 (indeterminably later than the Neronian period; yet Calpurnius shows a particular taste for this phase), see also Coleman 2006, 85 and n.5 for a dating of the eclogues to the third century, despite the fact that the poems ‘are set in the reign of Nero’, Edmondson 1996, 89 – 90 and n.90 for a poet (Calpurnius) writing sometime after the Flavian era, yet choosing to set his poems in the Neronian period, Feeney 2007, 136 – 7; Baldwin 1995, 157 – 67 (third century AD). Cf. also Keene 1912, 96 for a dating of Calpurnius in the age of Commodus as claimed by T. Maguire, Garnett 1888, 216 opting for Gordian III (a date also accepted by Fuxa and Chindemi, cf. Spadaro 1969, 5 and n.2, Gagliardi 1984, 12 – 3 and n.15, Di Salvo 1990, 23 and n.27), Jennison 1922, 73 postulating a chronology from Gordian I onwards (see also 1937, 70 – 1, 188 – 9), Raynaud 1931, 34 claiming a date in Probus’ years; see also Burckhardt 1954, 112 for a date in Numerianus’ time and Chastagnol 1976, 81 – 2 (end of the third / fourth century). 185 Cf. especially Cizek 1968, 149, Leach 1975, 204, Mayer 2006, 459, Magnelli 2006, 467 – 8. 186 Hubbard 1998, 155 and n.25 reads Calp. 1.4: pater quas tradidit, Ornyte, vaccae as a meta-linguistic reference to ‘pastoral succession’, suggested mainly by a possible use of the verb tradere in the sense of ‘to transmit ancestral knowledge’. From this perspective, the father bequeathing his cattle may be Vergil, the cattle may symbolise pastoral poetry and finally the recipients of this cattle / pastoral poetry, namely Corydon and Ornytus, may be read as the successors of Vergil (post-Vergilian bucolics). In a similar vein, the fourth Calpurnian eclogue presents Corydon (that is Calpurnius’ mask, cf. e. g. Fey-Wickert 2002, 12 and the relevant discussion in chapter 7, p. 245 and n.27) as trying to imitate his vates sacer predecessor, Tityrus, often read as symbolising Vergil (Calp. 4.65 – 9); cf.

38

Introduction

self ascribes to his own pastoral poetic work187. Thus it has been plausibly argued, in my view, that his surname, Siculus, is a fictitious formation designed to align him with Sicily as the default motherland of the bucolic song188. And indeed, several constituent ‘generic features’ of also chapter 7, pp. 255 – 6 and n.77. For Calpurnius and the ‘anxiety of Vergilian influence’, Vergil being the main model (cf. Mayer 1982, 310 – 1) of the Neronian poet, cf. especially Slater 1994, 71 – 8; see also Soraci 1982, 114 – 8. For Theocritus and Calpurnius, see especially Leach 1975, 213, Messina 1975, 10, Di Salvo 1990a, 275 and n.33, Esposito 1996, 29, Vinchesi 1996, 42 – 5, Fey-Wickert 2002, 13, Mayer 2006, 462, Magnelli 2006, 468 and the reservations of both Gagliardi 1984, 13 and n.17 and Hubbard 1998, 156 and n.28. 187 Thus, in the very first lines of his first programmatic eclogue, Calpurnius significantly places his narrative in the autumn (cf. also Postgate 1902, 39, Paladini 1956, 345 – 6, Verdière 1966, 164 further associating the incipit of Calp. 1 with the Meditrinalia (October-11th); see also 1968, 534 – 9, Gagliardi 1984, 29 and n.2, Leach 1973, 56 – 7, Messina 1975, 18 – 9, Davis 1987, 39, Mackie 1989, 9, Dehon 1993, 204, Vinchesi 1996, 14, 2002, 141 also suggesting an allusion to Nero’s autumnal (October 54 AD) ascension to power); accordingly the introductory pastoral setting is notably not that of the generically standard summer noontide, thus suggesting the notion of a ‘generic belatedness’ (cf. also Hubbard 1998, 154 – 5), a ‘secondariness’ (for this notion, cf. Hinds 1998, 83 – 98). Hubaux 1927a, 603 – 16, 1930, 194, 1930a, 454 ff., rather unconvincingly, claims that Calp. 1.1 – 3 do not constitute the beginning of the first Calpurnian eclogue, but instead belong to a preceding poem now lost; for a refutation of this thesis as well as an association of the autumnal image at the beginning of the first Calpurnian eclogue with Seneca’s Apocolocynthosis, cf. Luiselli 1963, 44 – 52; see also Gagliardi 1984, 52 and n.5. 188 Cf. Glaeser 1842, 2 – 3, Haupt 1875, 377, Cesareo 1931, 8 – 13, Verdière 1954, 16, Korzeniewski 1971, 1, Leach 1973, 88, Gagliardi 1984, 9, Mackie 1989, 9, Amat 1991, viii–ix, Vinchesi 1996, 7, Lana 1998, 823, Fey-Wickert 2002, 11, Mayer 2006, 454 and n.6. Verdière (cf. 1954, 17, 247 vs. Verdière 1985, 1856), not so compellingly, points to a probable Iberian origin of the poet (cf. also Bardon 1968, 222, Casaceli 1982, 102 and n.28), on the basis of both Calp. 4.39 ff. and epigraphic evidence, namely on the name Cabedus Sicculus – CIL 2.2863, whereby Sicculus may be an erroneous form of Siculus; yet for a compelling refutation of this thesis, cf. Luiselli 1960, 139 ff. observing that the form Sicculus may be explained as the diminutive of siccus; see also Gagliardi 1984, 9 and n.2, Vinchesi 1996, 8 and n.6 (also for an alleged association of the poet with the gens Calpurnia). For the thesis that the cognomen Siculus may point to a Sicilian origin of Calpurnius, cf. Skutsch 1897, 1405, Hubaux 1930, 173 – 4, Giarratano 1930, 463, Cesareo 1931, 176, 194 and n.1, Luiselli 1960, 142, Mahr 1964, 3 – 5, Messina 1975, 19 – 21, Gagliardi 1984, 13, Amat 1988, 75, 82, 1991, x–xi, 1995, 82, Di Salvo 1990, 24, Beato 2003, 83; on the basis of Calp. 7.17: Lucanae pecuaria silvae, a Lucanian origin has also been argued for

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

39

Theocritean (post-Theocritean) and Vergilian pastoral are to be found in the Calpurnian pastoral as well (cf. also chapters 6, 7), significantly not occurring exclusively in the merae bucolicae (the term as used for Calp. 2, 3, 5, 6) 189. Features that easily come to mind include the pastoral shade190, the oppressive (summer) heat191, the Theocritean pine tree or the Vergilian beech192 as well as other trees / plants with a ‘pastoral history’193, pastoral animals194, pens195 and pastures196, mountain scenery and forest landscapes197, the echo-effect (Calp. 4.27 – 8), the programmatic cicada (cf. Calp. 5.56), song exchange patterns198, pastoral musical organs (mainly harundo, calami, fistula, cicuta and the avena199), pipe fashioning200, milking and cheese making201, basket weaving (Calp. 3.68 – 9), the sweetness of pastoral song (Calp. 2.6: dulci…cantu, 4.9, cf. also 4.55 – 6, 61, 149 – 50,

189 190 191 192 193

194

195 196 197 198 199

200 201

Calpurnius Siculus, cf. Chytil 1894, 8; for a good, yet not exhaustive, overview of the various claims as to Calpurnius’ origin, cf. also Friedrich 1976, 8 – 10, Correa 1984, 223 – 7, Di Salvo 1990, 24 – 5. For the term, cf. Schröder 1991, 9 and passim. Calp. 1.6, 8 – 12, 19, 2.5, 12, 21, 3.16, 27, 4.2, 16, 37, 133, 5.2, 20, 59, 6.2, 61. Cf. also Luiselli 1963, 51, Bardon 1972, 12. Calp. 2.4, 3.15, 4.168. Cf. Hubbard 1998, 155 – 6, Calp. 1.9 – 10, 11 – 2, 20 – 1, 2.59, 4.16, 35, 7.5. Cf. also ilex, 2.12, 3.27, 88, 5.2, 6.61, salix, 2.44, 3.14, 19 (cf. also salictum, 3.68, 5.110), ulmus, 2.59, 3.14, aesculus, 5.59, hedera, 5.110, arbutum, 4.109, 7.72, etc. The flora that appears in both Calpurnius and Nemesianus does not present the varied gamut of the previous literary tradition; cf. especially Grant 2004, 125 – 34, in particular p. 131. Calp. 1.4 (vacca) / 2.2, 36, 45, 94, 4.25, 5.7, 24, 51, 57, 62, 69, 112 (grex) / 2.13, 37, 4.168, 5.29, 40, 73, 84 (ovis) / 2.37, 62 – 3, 68, 4.102, 5.15, 37, 48 (agna/us) / 2.18, 3.1 – 2, 15 – 7, 64, 98, 4.60, 7.3 (iuvenca, taurus) / 3.63, 4.166, 6.3, 7.10, 14 (haedus) / 5.5, 14, 29 (capella) / 1.38, 2.10, 4.44, 5.18, 23, 52, 63, 69, 103, 118, 7.17 (pecus, pecuaria) / 5.23, 68 (hircus), etc. Cf., however, on the other hand the exotic animal life of the amphitheatre in Calp. 7. See also Di Salvo 1990, 36 – 7 and nn.6, 7. Calp. 1.40, 3.74, 4.11, 156, 162, 5.18, 28, 39, 63, 7.11, 15. Calp. 2.18, 4.41, 155, 5.24, 54. Calp. 1.8 – 10, 4.38, 88, 95 – 8, 110 – 1, 133, 136, 153, 6.78, 7.2, 8, 30 – 2. Calp. 2, 6, 7.13 – 5. Calp. 1.16 – 8, 93, 2.28, 31, 92, 3.26, 58, 60, 4.19 – 21, 23, 26, 59 – 63, 65, 74, 76, 131, 6.10, 20, 7.8, 12. Cf. also canales – 4.76 (with Armstrong 1986, 119 – 20, Horsfall 1997, 186), canna – 2.31, 4.45, 101, buxum/us – 4.74; see also Smith 1970, 510. For the Calpurnian avena standing for bucolic poetry, cf. also Casaceli 1982, 99. Calp. 1.17 – 8, 3.26 – 7, 4.19 – 20. Calp. 2.68 – 71, 76 – 7, 3.66, 69, 4.25, 5.32 – 5.

40

Introduction

7.20 – 1), the bucolic pantheon202, locus amoenus settings203, the pathetic fallacy204, the orphic syndrome205, ‘pastoral love’, including (generically) typical efforts of the pastoral lover to win over his sweetheart (Calp. 2, 3, 6), song as the result of eros (Calp. 2.92), driving the flocks or resuming of other pastoral activities that have been postponed for the sake of pastoral song, when the night comes (a rather Vergilian motif) 206, the also Vergilian inscribing of a pastoral song on the bark of tree207, and the adynaton form (cf. Calp. 2.72 – 3), etc. Nevertheless, in Calpurnian pastoral one may often discern a revival or even an inversion of traditional pastoral motifs, a tendency that can be attributed to the general penchant of the Neronian literature for reviving or even inverting traditional Augustan trends; for the Neronians frequently practise what has been designated in the relevant bibliography as ‘aesthetics of deviation’ / ‘Ästhetik der Verkehrung’208 : For example, the song-contest of the sixth Calpurnian eclogue between Astylus and Lycidas, unlike the pastoral rules of pre-Calpurnian pastoral, never materialises. Similarly, one may also mention a comparative disapproval of notions associated with bucolic life and the earlier pastoral song / genre (cf. Calp. 1.29: nihil armentale resultat), expressed through e. g. the negative depiction of the generic pastoral locus amoenus at Calp. 4.1 – 4, see also 4.12 – 5, or the indifference of a distinguished pastoral poet, as Corydon appears to be, for song-contests, which are at the heart of everyday pastoral life as well as of the pastoral genre, Calp. 7.4 – 6, 13 – 8, see also 7.40 – 2, 45 – 6209.

202 Calp. 1.9, 15, 33, 91 (Faunus), 2.13 – 4, 34 (Faunus, Satyri, Nymphs), 28 (Silvanus), 32 – 3 (Flora, Pomona), 36 (Pales), 64 – 5 (Lares, Priapus), 4.61 (Faunus), 106 (Pales), 122 – 3 (Ceres, Bromius), 132 – 6 (Pan, Faunus, Nymphs), 5.25 – 7 (Pales, Faunus, Lares), 7.21 – 2 (Pales, pastoralis Apollo). For Apollo, often associated in the Neronian period with the emperor, cf. 4.9, 57, 70, 72, 87, 89, 159, 6.16, 7.84. 203 Calp. 1.4 – 7, 8 – 12, 2.4 – 7, 57 – 9, 4.1 – 4, 6.60 ff. 204 Calp. 2.15 – 20, 7.2 – 3. 205 i. e., the reaction of nature to Orpheus’ music; see Calp. 4.60 – 1, 66 – 7. 206 Calp. 2.94, 96 – 7, cf. also 4.168 and chapter 7, pp. 274 – 5. See also Van Sickle 1984, 124 – 47. Cf. also Theocr. 11.12 – 5, where the Cyclops is also presented as singing from dawn up to the return of the sheep in the evening. 207 Calp. 1.20 ff., 3.43 – 4, 4.130, cf. Verg. Ecl. 5. 208 Cf. especially Maes 2008, 317 and n.14. 209 Cf. also Damon 1973, 291 – 8, Davis 1987, 32 – 54, Schröder 1991, 35 – 8, Vozza 1993, 298, Mayer 2006, 459 – 62.

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

41

Calpurnius often displays a clear ‘generic movement’ towards / a ‘generic branching out’ in other literary genres (for a sense of a ‘generic dislocation’ towards urban ‘generic sensibilities’, cf. Calp. 4.160 – 3 and chapter 7, p. 273) 210 or towards a distinct ‘panegyric outlook’211, involving in particular the hymn to the emperor212, to an extent not appearing in the previous bucolic tradition213 and with a special political colouring214. This panegyric colouring, often associated with the pursuit of ‘imperial patronage’ (Calp. 1.92 – 4, 4.157 – 63) 215, is especially conspicuous in the so-called ‘programmatic / political eclogues’216, namely Ecl. 1, 4 and 7. These contain themes such as the prophecy of Faunus as to the aurea aetas of the new emperor’s era (Ecl. 1), the praise of the divine emperor and the return of the Golden Age motif once again (Ecl. 4) and the encomium of the amphitheatre, of the princeps’ games and Corydon’s relevant excited feedback to Lycotas (Ecl. 7), a poem constituting, according to Hubbard 1998, 175: ‘a rejection of the pastoral life and vision’217 or perhaps even Calpurnius’ ‘farewell’ to the pastoral genre218. Yet several scholars tried to disassociate Calpur210 Cf. e. g. Schröder 1991, 43 and n.5. 211 Cf. also Amatucci 1947, 60, Duff 1960, 268, Schmidt 1972, 123, Cooper 1977, 4 – 5, Williams 1978a, 280, Sullivan 1985, 51 – 6, Amat 1991, xxviii–xxxi, Schröder 1991, 13 – 21, Vinchesi 1992, 149, 1996, 13 – 29, Nauta 2006, 301 and n.1. Rosenmeyer 1969, 123 – 4 views panegyric as opposing pastoral simplicity; for a criticism of this view, cf. Mayer 2006, 457. 212 Cf. La Bua 1999, 296; see also Rosenmeyer 1969, 221, chapter 7, p. 253 and n.66. 213 Cf. also Bardon 1972, 1 – 13, especially 9 – 13; for a clear division between bucolics and encomiastic poetry in the Theocritean corpus, cf. also Effe – Binder 1989, 58 and the detailed relevant discussion in chapter 4, p. 177 and n.109. 214 Cf. Mackie 1989, 12 – 3. 215 Cf. also Mayer 2006, 458 – 9; see also Mackie 1989, 10. 216 For the terms, cf. Hubbard 1998, 152, Martin 2003, 75. 217 Mayer 2006, 461 – 2 reads the detailed description of the amphitheater as belonging to the ‘generic tradition’ of the epideictic epigram. 218 Cf. also Verdière 1966, 167, Leach 1973, 77 – 85, 1975, 223, Friedrich 1976, 157 – 8, Küppers 1989, 41 – 3 and n.29, Effe – Binder 1989, 124 – 30, Vozza 1993, 296 – 307, Vinchesi 1996, 29, Spencer 2005, 46 – 7, Tzounakas 2006, 124 – 5, Monella 2009, 85. Vergilian Tityrus’ trip to the city in order to see the political god of the first Vergilian eclogue seems to function as the main model for Corydon’s journey to Rome and its amphitheatre in Calp. 7; yet, whereas in the Vergilian intertext the meeting with the divine politician secures the continuation of Tityrus’ ‘pastoral existence’ and, therefore, the latter’s return to the country is positively perceived, this is no longer the case with the seventh Calpurnian pastoral; in Calp. 7 it is the city that is important and

42

Introduction

nius from the accusation of sheer adulation219 and thus postulated a progressive pessimism in his attitude towards the emperor, with a concomitant detachment of the author from the imperial circle and its penchant for obsequiousness (for example, in Ecl. 7 Corydon views the emperor, yet from a relative distance) 220. What is more, a ‘generic interaction / contact’ between pastoral, on the one hand, and comedy / elegy and georgics, on the other, can be claimed to form the basic ‘generic issues’ of eclogues 3 and 5. In the third Calpurnian eclogue, one comes across several distinct elegiac221 and comic222 motifs in concentration, whereas the fifth Calpurnian bucolic is of a distinct georgic character, as the aged Micon delivers his georgic / didactic poem on the management of a flock in front of the younger pastoral figure Canthus223. A similar georgic colouring is de-

219 220

221

222 223

thus Corydon’s return to the country is presented in negative colours. For this motif of the ‘journey to Rome’, cf. also Luck 1983, 231 – 6, Küppers 1989, 33 – 47, Vinchesi 1996, 26. Cf. e. g. Garson 1974, 668 calling the poet a ‘shameless toady’; see also Martin 2003, 73. Cf. especially Leach 1973, 85 – 7, 1975, 204 – 30, Newlands 1987, 218 – 31, Davis 1987, 32 – 54 (speaking of ‘a record of frustration and disillusionment’ on p. 49), Vozza 1993, 282 – 308, 1994, 71 – 92, Martin 2003, 73 – 90, Green 2009, 55 – 67, Monella 2009, 81 – 3 and his helpful survey of various relevant arguments; for a criticism of this thesis, cf. especially Fear 1994, 269 – 77, Vinchesi 1996, 27 and n.39, Mayer 2006, 457 – 8, who points out that the early years of Nero’s dominion were up to a point ‘satisfactory’; see also Verdière 1966, 164, Morford 1985, 2006, 2009 further stressing the ‘revival of Augustan [literary] patronage’ in Nero’s days, Vinchesi 1996, 5, Magnelli 2006, 471. Cf. Hubaux 1930, 223, Paladini 1956, 332 – 3, Verdière 1966, 169 – 70, Cizek 1972, 375, Friedrich 1976, 60 – 3, Bartalucci 1976, 97, Perutelli 1976, 782, Grimal 1978, 164 – 5, Davis 1987, 35, Effe – Binder 1989, 113, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 157, Fugmann 1992, 207, Vinchesi 1991, 259 – 76, 1992, 154, 1996, 37 – 9, Hubbard 1998, 153, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 15. Cf. Korzeniewski 1972, 215 and n.5. Cf. Ferrara 1905, 21, Cesareo 1931, 14, 61, Paladini 1956, 334, Marchiò 1957, 301 – 14, Grant 1965, 72 – 3, Verdière 1966, 171, Duff 1960, 267, Keene 1969, 38, 117, Rosenmeyer 1969, 20, Korzeniewski 1971, 102, 1972, 215, Cizek 1972, 375, Gnilka 1974, 148, Messina 1975, 106, Friedrich 1976, 105 – 15, Perutelli 1976, 782, Correa 1977, 150, Kettemann 1977, 108 – 10, Grimal 1978, 166, Mazzarino 1983, 407, Davis 1987, 35, Di Lorenzo 1987, 17 – 23, Effe – Binder 1989, 113, Mackie 1989, 11, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 160, Di Salvo 1990, 26, Amat 1991, 45, Vinchesi 1991, 276, 1992, 149, 156 – 60, 1996, 39 – 40, Fugmann 1992, 207, Dehon 1993, 208, Hubbard 1998, 153, Castagna 2002, xviii, Mayer 2005, 234, 2006, 461, Magnelli 2006, 467, Di Lorenzo –

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

43

tectable in the lines of both Idas and the gardener Astacus in the second Calpurnian eclogue224. On the other hand, there are several instances where Calpurnius seems to approach the ‘epic code’ as well, as is for example the war imagery of Calp. 1.46 – 53, modeled on the picture of Furor in the Roman epic text par excellence, cf. Verg. A. 1.291 – 6225, (which has a further parallel in Luc. 1.1 – 12), and the use of the epic ecphrasis in Calp. 7226. As for poetological meta-language, one can still come across traditional poetological Callimachean catchwords (e. g. levis, etc.) and motifs. Despite an ongoing criticism of Callimachus and Callimachean poetics, Roman Callimacheanism prevails in the literary circles of the Neronian period; even the leftovers from the poetic production of the very emperor testify to the latter’s Callimachean poetological adhesions227. Nevertheless, as previously observed in the case of traditional pastoral assets, an inversion of these Callimachean – neoteric motifs is often to be discerned in the Calpurnian corpus; this is for example the case with the image of a personified poverty plucking Corydon’s ear in the fourth Calpurnian eclogue (4.155 – 6), which can be interpreted as a reversal of the well-known motif of Apollo advising the ‘generic orientation’ of the slender Muse (cf. chapter 7, pp. 272 – 3). A final remark: one should consider here the question of a progressive loss of ‘ambiguities’, as we move towards the post-Vergilian scene, Calpurnius included. Vergil’s Ecl. 1 and 9 for example are fraught with ‘ambiguity’ as to the function, position and even merits of pastoral singing within a certain ideological / political context; and Ecl. 4 is also pervaded by a sense of standing at the intersection of practical politics (in

224 225

226 227

Pellegrino 2008, 10, 16. For a more critical approach towards the ‘georgic outlook’ of the eclogue, cf. especially Leach 1975, 217, Verdière 1985, 1854 – 5, Magnelli 2006, 474 – 5, Landolfi 2009, 89 – 128. A further Calpurnian characteristic, often associated with the author’s georgic interests, is the technical diction Calpurnius frequently opts for; cf. Paladini 1956, 527, Vinchesi 1992, 149 – 61 and 1996, 49 – 50. Cf. Vinchesi 1996, 35 – 7, Fey-Wickert 2002, mainly 16 – 22 and passim, Magnelli 2006, 467; see also chapter 6. Cf. also Keene 1969, 57, Korzeniewski 1971, 14 – 5, Leach 1973, 60, Narducci 1979, 28 – 9, Krautter 1992, 190 – 1, Slater 1994, 77, Martin 1996, 24, Vinchesi 1996, 16, 2002, 143 – 5, Hubbard 1998, 158 – 61, Esposito 2009, 16 – 7, Fucecchi 2009, 59 and n.53. See also Calp. 1.77 – 86, and its reading, under an epic perspective, in Hubbard 1998, 161 – 3. Cf. Vozza 1993, 299 and n.58. Cf. Sullivan 1985, 74 – 114 and p. 89 in particular.

44

Introduction

the sense of ‘who is to rule the State’), on the one hand, and a de-historicised landscape of non-tension, on the other. It is hard to find any of these in Calpurnius. In this sense, pastoral largely loses its function as a fictional discourse that brings out the full implications of a neoteric attitude within a broader Roman context. It rather becomes a straightforward instrument of political (panegyric) discourse, which makes a purely formalistic use of the pastoral scenario. Alternatively, one could argue that, since eulogy of a political figure, however explicit and devoid of the subtle Vergilian nuances, becomes a quoted song in the course of a pastoral session, panegyric itself becomes part of a literary fiction, where the ‘pragmatics’ of song production get the upper hand over the song’s theme. But this would be to ascribe to Calpurnius a mood of ‘ambiguity’ which he does not seem to deserve.

Einsiedeln Eclogues The following discussion centers on two pastoral poems of unknown authorship (whether they are the work of a single or – more probably – of multiple authors228 is also unspecified), so named after the Benedictine Abbey of Einsiedeln in Switzerland, where they were discovered in a single manuscript, the codex Einsidlensis 266 (E) of the tenth century AD (pp. 206 – 7); both poems were first published by H. Hagen in 1869. In all probability, both should be dated to the Neronian period229,

228 Cf. Duckworth 1967, 85, 1969, 95, Cizek 1972, 380 and n.4; for two poets, see also Korzeniewski 1966, 358 – 9, Sullivan 1985, 56, Verdière 1985, 1913 – 4, Korzeniowski 1998, 339 – 50. 229 Cf. Butler 1909, 156, Summers 1920, 94, Hubaux 1930, 228, Grant 1965, 74, Cupaiuolo 1973, 192, Dihle 1994, 107, Hubbard 1998, 140, Lana 1998, 827, Merfeld 1999, 19. For the various dates within the Neronian period proposed by scholars, cf. the overview offered by Amat 1997, 142 – 5. Calpurnius Siculus, Lucan and Calpurnius Piso have been proposed as the authors of these poems; for a refutation of such endeavours, cf. Theiler 1956, 577, Verdière 1985, 1888. In particular, for Lucan as a possible author of Eins. 1 and 2, cf. Maciejczyk 1907, 23 – 35, Loesch 1909, 72 – 7, Herrmann 1930, 435 – 6, Verdière 1952, 799 – 804, 1954, 43 – 4, 1966, 172 – 3 (a view subsequently dropped by the scholar, cf. Amat 1997, 134 and n.20); for Calpurnius Piso as the Eins. author, cf. Groag, 1897, 1379, Bickel 1954, 193 – 209, Grimal 1978, 163, whereas for the view that the Eins. author is ‘a Greek of the same literary circle as Lucan’, cf. Hubbard 1998, 143 and n.8. For the author as propagandist poet belonging

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

45

although there is no consensus whether Calpurnius Siculus’ œuvre (if a Neronian poet) chronologically precedes the Eins. poems or vice versa (cf. also the relevant discussion in chapter 7, p. 242 and n.15). Both eclogues display several thematic and linguistic similarities with Calpurnius’ pastoral oeuvre230, and similarly deal with the laudatory and overall favourable depiction of the emperor, a subject matter that brings the poems into the generic category of the ‘panegyric pastoral’, a trendy pastoral version of the Neronian period231 (cf. also above the remarks on Calpurnius Siculus, pp. 40 – 1); yet, as in the case of Calpurnius Siculus, a degree of detachment from the emperor’s adulation is sought after in the case of the Eins. author/s as well, and thus both poems have often been read as criticism or ironies with a view to undermining the imperial image232. In any case, formalistic markers of the bucolic genre are again to be found in the eclogues, such as plants and animals of the ‘pastoral space’ (Eins. 2.19, 22, 25, 37), the locus amoenus and the pastoral shade (Eins. 1.3 – 4, 2.12 – 4), the pastoral pipe (Eins. 1.9, 2.19), pastoral / agricultural activities (Eins. 2.30 – 1), and the gods of the pastoral pantheon (Eins. 1.9 – 10, 17, 23, 32, 37, 2.38). However, as previously remarked in the case of Calpurnius Siculus, cf. p. 40, most of these pastoral elements are either ‘undermined’ or often negatively depicted; for example, the opening Eins. poem is a boujokiasl|r, i. e., a pastoral singing match between two herdsmen, Thamyras and Ladas, but this time in praise of the emperor and his epic output. Furthermore, in the line of Calpurnius Siculus once again, the Eins. poet imitates previous pastoral in such a way as to suggest a ‘generic transcendence’ of the earlier ‘green cabinet’ and its poetry (incomplete boujokiasl¹r patterns, accumulative epic intertexts, especially Vergil and Lucan233, etc., cf. chapter 8). The second Eins. eclogue is also a dialogue between two pastoral figures, Glyceranus and Mystes; yet its subject matter is crucially again the aurea aetas (cf. above similar concerns in the oeuvre of Calpurnius Siculus, p. 41), a common Neronian motif,

230 231 232 233

to the imperial court, cf. especially Scheda 1966, 384; for the poet (s) as belonging to the circle of the Calpurnii, cf. also Cizek 1972, 202 – 3. Cf. especially Amat 1997, 129 – 33 and n.2 on pp. 129 – 30. Cf. Binder 1989, 363 – 5, Amat 1997, 136, 146. Cf. Korzeniewski 1966, 344 – 60, Bartalucci 1976, 85, 100 – 8, Sullivan 1985, 56 – 9, Amat 1997, 147, Merfeld 1999, 112 ff. passim; see also chapter 8, pp. 281 – 2 and n.5, p. 286 and n.23. Cf. Hubbard 1998, 143.

46

Introduction

but, in pastoral ‘generic terms’, ultimately harking back to Verg. Ecl. 4234, i. e., the very poem in which Vergil self-admittedly ‘rises above’ the ‘generic boundaries’ of pastoral. The traditional poetic Callimachean meta-language makes an occasional appearance in the Eins. group as well (cf. e. g. the qualification of the pastoral fistula by means of its default poetological pastoral definition, levis, Eins. 1.8; see also chapter 8, p. 284). Nevertheless, as in the case of Calpurnius Siculus, the Eins. author/s often reverse (s) the traditional meta-poetic semantic load of relevant catchwords, when using them instead in reference to non-slender poetic qualities against the Callimachean trend (see chapter 8, especially pp. 285 ff.). Nemesianus On the basis of his praise of Numerianus and Carinus in the prologue of the Cynegetica (283 – 4 AD), Nemesianus (probably from Carthage235) should be dated to the end of the third century AD236 ; in that case, he is a poet writing in a period when bucolic images and motifs are very trendy in art, politics and religion, a tendency that seems to have 234 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 144 – 9 pointing out similarities between Eins. 2, on the one hand, and Verg. Ecl. 4, 5 and Lucan, on the other; see also Amat 1997, 140 – 1 and n.50, Mayer 2006, 464. For an influence of Theocr. 16.88 – 97, the ‘unpastoral’ encomium of Hieron, further ‘de-pastoralising’ the ‘generic outlook’ of Eins. 2, see Korzeniewski 1971, 83, Hubbard 1998, 146 – 8. 235 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 9, Korzeniewski 1976, 1, Effe – Binder 1989, 144, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 7, Cupaiuolo 1997, 5 and n.1, 28 – 32, Vinchesi 1998, 134 and n.6, La Bua 1999, 346 and n.12. Wernsdorf associates Nemesianus with the African city of Nemesium (cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 5 and n.1), whereas Verdière 1974, 2 understands the name Nemesianus as deriving from the collegium of the Nemesiaci, i. e., hunters-followers of Nemesis-Diana; for a refutation of these views, see Cupaiuolo 1997, 5 and n.1. 236 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 1, Cupaiuolo 1997, 5 – 8, Vinchesi 1998, 133, Volpilhac 1998, 3175, La Bua 1999, 346. For a dating of the Eclogues close to that of the Cynegetica, cf. Hubbard 1998, 178 and n.56; Verdière 1974, 10 – 8 dates the eclogues as early as 238 AD, on the basis of his reading of Meliboeus (Nemes. 1) as the bucolic persona of Gordian I. For a refutation of this thesis, cf. Himmelmann-Wildschütz 1972, 342 – 9, Schetter 1975, 1, 39 – 43, Walter 1988, 28, Hubbard 1998, 178 and n.56. Luiselli 1958, 189 – 208, on the other hand, sees in Meliboeus a masque of the emperor Marcus Aurelius Carus (cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 171) vs. Effe – Binder 1989, 150. Yet once again such specific identifications with contemporary political figures are beyond the scope of the present study.

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

47

influenced the ‘generic orientation’ of Nemesianus237. Until Haupt 1875, Nemesianus’ four bucolics were erroneously attributed to Calpurnius Siculus, due to a mistake of the copyists of the older manuscripts, who omitted Nemesianus’ name238. As is the case with Calpurnius Siculus, Nemesianus too discloses his ‘generic awareness’, his sense of belonging to a pastoral genre with Vergil as his seminal predecessor239. The figure of the aged Tityrus, from whom the younger pastoral character Timetas240 asks for a pastoral song, has been read as the image of the pastoral Vergil, whom a subsequent bucolic poet, i. e., Timetas-Nemesianus, sets out to emulate241. 237 Cf. Walter 1988, 103 – 6. 238 Cf. especially Reeve 1986, 37 – 8, Mayer 2006, 464 – 5. In the late twentieth century Radke 1972, 615 – 23 has also tried to assign all 11 bucolics to Calpurnius Siculus; for a refutation of her unconvincing thesis and her paleographical misconceptions, cf. especially Reeve 1978, 223 – 38, 230 and n.27 in particular, Williams 1986, 4 – 8. For Nemesianus’ peculiar versification, further backing up the separation of his bucolics from Calpurnius’ eclogues, cf. more recently Encuentra-Ortega 1999, 303 – 25. 239 Nemesianus’ orientation towards classical models accounts for his designation as ‘classicist’; cf. also Schetter 1975, 15, Wlosok 1983 – 4, 257, Küppers 1989, 45 and n.39, Volpilhac 1998, 3177. For Nemesianus’ close linguistic imitation of his models, to the extent of being accused of plagiarism by some critics, cf. especially Verdière 1966, 185, Volpilhac 1975, 25, Vinchesi 1998, 134 and n.9. For Nemesianus’ aspiring to a poetic career parallel to that of Vergil (pastoral, didactic poetry, epic), cf. Walter 1988, 106 – 7, Küppers 1989, 45 – 6, Effe – Binder 1989, 144, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 171 and n.64. 240 Aka Thymoetas, a reading adopted by Haupt for metrical reasons; cf. also Effe – Binder 1989, 145. 241 Cf. Küppers 1989, 44 – 5 and n.38, Effe – Binder 1989, 148, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 171, 174, Cupaiuolo 1997, 122, Hubbard 1998, 178 and n.57. Hubbard loc. cit. prefers to read Tityrus as representing the whole of the bucolic poetic tradition before Nemesianus rather than Vergil exclusively, and the same is valid for Meliboeus; see also Schetter 1975, 7 ff., Walter 1988, 29 – 31. For Timetas as Nemesianus’ mask, see also Paladini 1956a, 327, Luiselli 1958, 191, Verdière 1974, 3 – 4, Vinchesi 1998, 134. As for the deceased Meliboeus in particular, Hubbard 1998, 182 sees in his figure a further ‘paradigmatic exemplar of the pastoral song tradition to which the younger Timetas aspires’. For Meliboeus, on the other hand, as a masque of Theocritus, cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 122 – 3, whereas for Meliboeus as a potential masquerade of Calpurnius Siculus, cf. Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 171. Yet another allegorical reading, also suggesting a notion of ‘pastoral continuity’, comes from Nemesianus’ third bucolic, which harks back to the setting of the sixth Vergilian eclogue: Nyctilus, Micon and Amyntas, the three boys of Nemes. 3.1, who succeed in stealing the fistula of Pan, but can produce nothing but discordant tunes (v. 10: pro car-

48

Introduction

The very setting of the incipit (Nemes. 1.1 – 8), with its traditional image of the pastoral poet weaving a basket, stands, as previously remarked, pp. 13 – 4, for the process of composing pastoral poetry per se (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 10.71242). The presence of a slender reed (v. 3: gracili…harundine) suggests the Callimachean slenderness of the pastoral genre to be followed by Nemesianus as well (cf. also 1.22: dicat honoratos praedulcis tibia manes). Finally, the meta-poetic image of the shrill cicadas (v. 2, cf. also Nemes. 4.42) complements a scene full of verbal programmatic Vergilian reminiscences, thus lending further support to the metapoetic reading of both this programmatic passage and its main pastoral figures243. Hence from the very first programmatic lines of his poetry, Nemesianus, following the Alexandrian ethos, makes his ‘generic adhesion’ to a pastoral genre of Callimachean poetological orientation clear244. Once again in the case of Nemesianus there is no difficulty in spotting a multitude of bucolic motifs, which are not found exclusively in Nemesianus, but rather form part of the preceding pastoral tradition as a whole245, thus suggesting the notion of a ‘pastoral generic continuity’. These include common pastoral deities (Pan and Apollo246, Faunus / Fauns247, Pales248, Flora249, the Nymphs250, Dionysus251, Priapus252, Silvanus253), standard bucolic musical organs254, trees / plants255 and ani-

242 243 244 245

246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253

minibus male dissona sibila reddit), have been read as symbolising Nemesianus’ pastoral predecessors (Theocritus, Vergil, Calpurnius Siculus), cf. Lackner 1996, 43 – 4, Hubbard 1998, 206 – 7, 209 – 10. Cf. also Grant 2004, 127. Cf. especially Hubbard 1998, 179 – 80, Mayer 2006, 466. Cf. also Walter 1988, 9 – 10. Cf. e. g. Hubbard 1998, 181, where instances of a combined Theocritean, Vergilian and Calpurnian influence on Nemes. 1 are discussed. For Theocritean and post-Theocritean influence on Nemesianus’ pastoral corpus in general, cf. also Kaibel 1882, 419, Cisorio 1896, passim, Castagna 1970, 415 – 43, Cupaiuolo 1997, 29 – 30 and n.20, 32. For Nemesianus’ relation to the previous bucolic tradition, cf. also Cupaiuolo 1997, 8 – 13. Nemes. 1.4 – 5, 24 – 5, 63, 65, 82, 2.54 – 5, 72 – 3, 3.3. Nemes. 1.14, 66, 2.73, 3.25. Nemes. 1.68, 2.52, 55. Nemes. 1.69. Nemes. 1.69, 2.20 – 1, 3.25. Nemes. 2.51, 3.16 ff. Nemes. 2.51. Nemes. 2.56.

Post-Vergilian Pastoral: ‘Generic Expansion’

49

mals256 constructing a rather typical literary pastoral landscape, pastoral noises (rustling of a tree – Nemes. 1.30, 72, the woodland echo – Nemes. 1.73 – 4), the generic locus amoenus257, the pastoral shade258, instances of pathetic fallacy (Nemes. 2.29 – 30), the lament for a distinguished pastoral poet (Nemes. 1 for the death of Meliboeus259), boujokiasl¹r (Nemes. 1.15 – 7) and song exchange patterns in general (Nemes. 2 and 4), ‘pastoral love’ and the typical efforts of the lover to gain access to his beloved (Nemes. 2, 4), flute-making260, several traditional menial pastoral activities (watering of the flock (Nemes. 1.86 – 7), driving together the animals at nightfall (Nemes. 2.89 – 90, 3.67 – 8261), milking and cheese making262, basket weaving263), the sweet quality of pastoral song264 and adynata (cf. Nemes. 2.44 – 9)265. Although Nemesianus’ pastoral does not favour the imperial panegyric of Calpurnian bucolics and the Eins. Eclogues266, it shares with them a ‘generic interplay’ between pastoral and other literary genres, mainly elegy, discernible especially in eclogues 2 and 4, and a willingness for ‘generic alteration’ – at least up to a point – from pastoral predecessors. It is precisely this conscious tendency towards ‘modification’ that the present study aims to investigate in the case of Nemesianus’ ‘ge254 harundo, Nemes. 1.3, calamus, Nemes. 1.4, 16, 25, 2.39, 53, 82, 3.7, 17, 4.2, 15, fistula, Nemes. 1.14, 80, 3.5, 9, tibia, Nemes. 1.22, avena, Nemes. 1.27, 71, 2.82, 3.11, cicuta, Nemes. 3.13; cf. also Smith 1970, 510. 255 willows (salix), Nemes. 1.6, elms (ulmus), Nemes. 1.31, 3.3, 4.8, 47, the plane tree (platanus), Nemes. 1.72, 2.18, ilex (ilex), Nemes. 3.2, cypress (cupressus), Nemes. 2.86, osiers (viburnum), Nemes. 2.86, hazel (corylus), Nemes. 2.87, the Theocritean programmatic pine tree (pinus), Nemes. 1.30, 73, 2.87, the also programmatic Vergilian beech tree (fagus), Nemes. 1.31, 4.9, the Calpurnian cherry tree (cerasus), Nemes. 1.28 – 9, cf. also Calp. 3.43 – 4, etc. 256 haedi, vaccae, Nemes. 1.6 – 7, 2.29, 4.34, tauri, Nemes. 1.34, 2.90, 4.26, iuvencae, Nemes. 2.35, 4.26, etc. For Nemesianus’ fauna and flora, cf. also Cupaiuolo 1997, 42 – 3; see also Amat 1995, 87. 257 Nemes. 1.32 – 4, 4.46 – 8. 258 Nemes. 2.23 – 4, 3.2, 4.1, 38. 259 Cf. also Verdière 1966, 177 – 8, Beato 2003, 95. 260 Nemes. 1.58 – 9, 3.13 – 4. 261 Cf. Verg. Ecl. 6.85 – 6, Hubbard 1998, 212 and n.103. 262 Nemes. 2.34, 36, 3.68 – 9. 263 Nemes. 1.1 – 2, 2.33 – 4. 264 Nemes. 1.22, 82, 2.15, 4.13. 265 Cf. also Amat 1991, xxxviii and n.90. 266 Cf. also Himmelmann-Wildschütz 1972, 347 – 9, Küppers 1989, 43 – 4, Binder 1989, 364, Mayer 2006, 465.

50

Introduction

neric identity’. Urban elegy can be seen to intrude largely into the ‘pastoral generic realm’ of Nemesianus’ amoebaean songs, and, from this perspective, it may not be just a coincidence that, in imitation of Calp. 4.160 – 1 (see especially Effe – Binder 1989, 149 and chapter 9, p. 318 and n.107), Tityrus wishes that Apollo will lead the younger member of the ‘green cabinet’ (Timetas = Nemesianus ?) dominam…in urbem (Nemes. 1.83). Yet, one should distinguish between Nemesianus, on the one hand, and the rest of the post-Vergilian bucolic tradition (mainly Calpurnius), on the other, as far as ‘generic innovation / alteration’ is concerned; in several instances Nemesianus’ work reads rather like ‘a pastoral about pastoral’ (cf. especially Ecl. 2), a summing up of previous pastoral, without much originality or even a wish for significant innovation, at least to the extent this undertaking for ‘generic novelty’ is discernible in the Calpurnian bucolics.

Language and Style / the Term Callimachean – Neoteric: Methodological Remarks The present book also addresses ‘generic consciousness’ as reflected in terms of language and style, especially in the case of the Vergilian and Calpurnian amoebaean eclogues, as similar patterns largely do not seem to hold true in the case of post-Calpurnian pastoral stylistics. The basic linguistic categories to be used comprise mainly colloquialisms (i. e., language of a lower register), archaisms and post-classical Latin (PC); for an extended methodological account of these terms, cf. Karakasis 2005, 16 – 7, 25 – 9, 46 and the relevant bibliography given there. A further term frequently used is Callimachean – neoteric. This term designates in the present study Callimachean poetic theory as deduced by Callimachus’ extant oeuvre and practised, in Roman terms, not only by the initial circle of Roman neoteric poets (Catullus, Calvus, Cinna, etc.) but also, although with some degree of detachment from the previous Callimachean tradition, by the Roman ‘neo-Callimacheanism’ (term as mainly used by Sullivan 1985, 75 – 6 and passim) as well, namely the followers of the Neoterics, that is chiefly by the Roman love-poets as well as early Vergil, i. e., authors further influenced by Parthenius. Horace as well, for all his diversity, frequently aligns himself

Aims of the Present Study: Defining Pastoral Song Exchange

51

with Callimachean poetics, and thus may also be used, although with caution, as a further source of Roman Callimacheanism267.

Aims of the Present Study: Defining Pastoral Song Exchange Before proceeding with the main analysis, it is necessary to justify the choice of the eclogues to be discussed. The focus of the present work is the amoebaean eclogues, i. e., the poems where the dramatic setting involves an exchange of songs by two herdsmen, suggesting the notion of the Theocritean amoebaean boujokiasl|r, which is the core of the pastoral ‘generic tradition’. Thus, based chiefly on the notions of intertextual and intratextual allusion, I shall examine how ‘deviations’ from the ‘pastoral norm’ as well as images which imply an anti-neoteric outlook might cause ‘generic frustration’, i. e., challenge the reader’s horizon of ‘generic expectations’. The examination of ‘generic issues’ is often complemented by a study of the way in which stylistic, linguistic and metrical devices underscore the notion of ‘generic fluidity’. The amoebaean eclogue is thus taken here as the quintessential pastoral form, for singing is the exemplary activity of characters in the pastoral world; ‘generic interaction’ of course is found in other kinds of pastoral, and the restriction to the amoebaean might therefore seem somewhat artificial. Nonetheless pastoral poems containing a competition or exchange of songs formalistically constitute a clear-cut sub-category of the bucolic genre, with its distinct formalist typology, and thus it would be interesting to examine the ‘generic identity’ of this particular sub-type of bucolic song, especially when considered as the occupation par excellence or in any case an emblematic pursuit of the ‘green cabinet’. On the other hand, in cases where a judgment is passed on the relative merits of the two singers (yet only in a minority of the pastoral singing matches), one may further detect an adjudication on the relative ‘generic purity’ of the two singers’ production along the following equation: more purely pastoral = better (cf. e. g. Verg. Ecl. 7). Yet, in this last case, a crucial issue relates to the perspective of the song-contest – result: ‘better’ from whose point of view? – probably, as accepted in this book, from that of the singers in the pastoral world itself or the umpire of the song exchange, often anxious to preserve inviolate their pastoral world and its canons, but less so from that of the pastoral poet or 267 Cf. e. g. Thomas 2007, 50 – 6.

52

Introduction

even his readers, for whom ‘generic interaction’ might well function as one of the prime generators of both poetic innovation and interest268. Although individual poems in an amoebaean setting present considerable diversity, it is nevertheless possible to discern a basic pattern. This is especially the case with agonistic song exchanges, as concisely expressed by the relevant comment of Servius, ad 3.28: amoebaeum autem est, quotiens qui canunt, et aequali numero versuum utuntur, et ita se habet ipsa responsio, ut ad maius aut contrarium aliquid dicant, sicut sequentia indicabunt 269. This basic pattern requires careful scrutiny and description270, as ‘deviations’ from it are often associated with ‘generic alteration’ and ‘frustration’ in terms of ‘generic expectation’. Two herdsmen meet in an idyllic landscape (Theocr. 5.31 – 4, 45 – 61, 6.1 – 5, Verg. Ecl. 3.55 – 9, 5.1 – 9, 7.1 – 5, 10 – 3, Calp. 2.4 – 6, 6.1 – 2, 62 – 72, Nemes. 2.18 – 9, 4.1 – 3), which functions as a ‘generic marker’ of pastoral, and, after a possible initial exchange of lines, either in friendly (Theocr. 7, Verg. Ecl. 5, Calp. 2, 4, Nemes. 2, 4) or hostile terms (Theocr. 5, [Theocr.] 8, Verg. Ecl. 3 (see also 7), Calp. 6), they normally proceed, often after a relevant challenge has been expressed (Theocr. 5.21 – 2, [Theocr.] 8.5 – 10, Verg. Ecl. 3.28 – 9, Calp. 6.19 – 21, Eins. 1.13 – 4), to the performance of their songs. The poem often provides substantial information concerning the setting of the song exchange and the singers involved; in this last case, the reader is usually informed of the herdsmen’s name, age, specialisation if any, their physical appearance as well as their qualities both in a professional (pastoral / agricultural in the strict sense) and a musical capacity. In most cases a prize for the winner of the contest is determined, before the actual contest begins (Calp. 2.7 – 8, 6.32 – 58, see also vv. 3 – 5 of a narrated song-contest between Nyctilus and Alcon at the beginning of the eclogue, Eins. 1.5 – 12), although in some cases the initial prize is later substituted by something else (Theocr. 5.21 – 30, [Theocr.] 8.11 – 24, Verg. Ecl. 3.29 – 48). An umpire is nominated (Calp. 2.9, 6.3, 21, Eins. 1.1), time and again a person happening to be in the area at the moment of the song contest (Theocr. 5.65, [Theocr.] 8.25 – 7, Verg. Ecl. 3.50 – 1, Calp. 6.28 – 9, 91 – 3). In some cases however, as in the 268 However, this conflict of perspectives might need further exploration in a study focusing mainly on this particular issue of various perceptions. 269 Cf. also Breed 2006a, 348. 270 Cf. especially Gow 1952, 92 – 4, Merkelbach 1956, 97 – 133, Rossi 1971b, 13 – 24, Powell 1976, 115 – 6, Pearce 1992, 81, Clausen 1994, 89 – 92.

Aims of the Present Study: Defining Pastoral Song Exchange

53

sixth Theocritean idyll, no stakes are proposed and the song exchange closes with a friendly swap of gifts. In [Theocr.] 9, on the other hand, it is the poet himself who makes a present of a shepherd’s crook and a conch to Daphnis and Menalcas respectively, after their successive performances take place. Claims for impartiality are sometimes voiced (Theocr. 5.68 – 71) or alternatively a demand for attention is made (Verg. Ecl. 3.54, Eins. 1.2, see also Calp. 6.76 – 8) and the exchange of songs usually follows. The first singer is in a more advantageous position, in the sense that he is the one to choose the topic of the songs, thus forcing his opponent to cap his lyrics; yet in most cases no clear dramatic continuity, no ‘engagement at the level of content’271 is to be discerned in the course of the exchange. The singers perform in couplets (Theocr. 5, Verg. Ecl. 3), four-lines strophes (Verg. Ecl. 7, Calp. 2 with the exception of the three-lines last exchange of the eclogue, vv. 92 – 7272), five-lines (Calp. 4) or six-lines strophical units (Nemes. 4), always in hexameter, with the exception of the elegiac couplets in the first part of the song exchange in the eighth pseudotheocritean idyll. However, there are cases where the exchange is structured into two longer, separate performances taking place one after the other, occasionally split by a verse or a few verses marking the narrative transition, as is the case with the sixth and the seventh Theocritean idyll, [Theocr.] 9, the fifth and eighth Vergilian eclogue, the first Eins. poem as well as the second pastoral of Nemesianus. A combination of shorter with longer songs also occurs in the case of [Theocr.] 8. The umpire, if any, makes a decision at the end of the singing match, proclaiming either the superiority of one of the contestants or a draw (Theocr. 5.138 – 40 (cf. also 6.46), [Theocr.] 8.81 – 93, Verg. Ecl. 3.108 – 11, 7.69 – 70, Calp. 2.98 – 100, cf. also 4.149 – 51). ‘Deviations’ from this basic pattern are to be found in individual poems. These are discussed in the relevant chapters, where it is also examined how this discrepancy as to the generically expected norm contributes to the overall meaning of the poem.

271 Cf. Martindale 1997, 120, Breed 2006a, 350 – 1. 272 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 16, 18, 54 – 5.

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw? In a typical pastoral landscape, in the shade of a wild spearing ilex (sub arguta…ilice, v. 1), where the archetypical pastoral figure, Daphnis (the chosen umpire of the contest1), is sitting, Corydon and Thyrsis, the two protagonists of the seventh Vergilian eclogue, drive their flocks to rest. Both are described as being in the prime of their youth (ambo florentes aetatibus, v. 4) and probably are of the same age; in any case no distinction between older vs. younger is drawn. Both are of Arcadian origin2 (Arcades ambo, v. 4, although the dramatic setting of the contest is placed beside Mincius, v. 13), something that entails the highest possible degree of rapprochement with music and its placement as the foremost value, and, furthermore, both are depicted as equally capable and eager singers (et cantare pares et respondere parati, v. 5) 3. After this initial presentation by Meliboeus (the narrator relating the story of the contest after a period of time4), who is invited by Daphnis to join them in the shadow, the narrative of the singing match begins. Corydon develops a topic and Thyrsis replies in a similar vein, thus being at a disadvantage in relation to the winner Corydon, who is not obliged to take Thyrsis’ lyrics into account, when his turn comes again5. After forty-eight lines, taken up by quatrains in which the two competitors develop various Theocritean topics (invocations to shepherds, the presence of Galatea, the handsome Alexis, etc.), Meliboeus announces the result: Corydon is the winner (ex 1 2 3

4 5

Cf. Schäfer 2001, 117. For Daphnis as an umpire, see also Della Corte 1984, 563, Clausen 1994, 212 and n.11, Egan 1996, 233. Cf. Alpers 1979, 126. See also Van Sickle 1967, 493, Leach 1974, 197. Cf. Kraggerud 2006, 38 – 41. The passage is modeled on [Theocr.] 8.3 – 4; an allusion to A.P. 6.96 (Erucius) or its model may also be discerned, for the pastoral figures of the epigram, namely Corydon and Glaucon, are also presented as Arcadians, cf. Clausen 1994, 215 – 6, Saunders 2008, 168 and n.28; see also Jenkyns 1989, 33 – 4. Cf. also Thomas 1999, 185, Breed 2006, 69 – 70, 153. For the relatively disadvantageous position of the second singer in a bucolic poetic contest, see also Skutsch 1971, 28, Schultz 2003, 200 and n.3.

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

55

illo Corydon Corydon est tempore nobis, v. 70) 6, whereas Thyrsis strove in vain (victum frustra contendere Thyrsin, v. 69). Several studies have dealt with the reasons of Corydon’s victory in this contest. Pöschl’s7 scrupulous work has tried to show that Corydon’s superiority is proved on many levels, e. g. metre, ethics and choice of song-themes, whereas Thyrsis’ quatrains are characterised by numerous technical flaws. As Pöschl himself puts it 1964, 109, one can discern in the present eclogue a contrast between two different elements of bucolic poetry, namely the ‘verklrte’ and the ‘karikierte’. Pöschl’s views have been criticised with some justification by Skutsch8 and Dahlmann9, who showed that several of Pöschl’s comparative conclusions do not hold true. Dahlmann believes that Thyrsis fails to adhere to Vergil’s ‘pastoral ideal’, approaching instead Theocritean models. Wülfing v. Martitz10 underlines Thyrsis’ arrogance, as evidenced by his frequent use of first person pronouns, while Waite11 claims that Corydon wins simply owing to his tender amorous disposition. Technical defects (metre, rhythm, linguistic / stylistic monotony) as the reasons for Thyrsis’ defeat 6 For Corydon, as a significant name, having the sense of ‘lark’, in Greek joqud½m or j|qudor, used by Meliboeus in the line twice, with a view to ascribing the winner of the contest the supremacy of the lark as a songster, cf. Egan 1996 234; see also Caviglia 1984, 887, Bettini 1972, 261 – 76, Harrison 1998, 310 – 11 and the comments of Servius upon Corydon of both the second and the seventh eclogue in Egan 1996, 234. What is more, Egan 1996, 237 – 9 associates corylos of v. 63 with Corydon and, by consequence, with the lark, joqud½m in Greek; see also Pöschl 1964, 139. For v. 70 as alluding to [Theocr.] 8.92, cf. Breed 2006, 70. 7 Pöschl 1964, 93 – 154. 8 Skutsch 1965, 162 – 9, 1971, 28 – 9 and n.4. 9 Dahlmann 1966, 218 – 32; see also Braun 1971, 403 – 4. 10 Wülfing v. Martitz 1970, 380 – 2. There is doubt amongst scholars concerning Corydon’s victory; some believe that Thyrsis’ defeat is simply made up (Page 1898, ad 69, cf. Clausen 1994, 211 and n.6), whereas others think that Corydon’s win is patent (cf. Wormell 1969, 12). Others find that Thyrsis is superior to Corydon in some quatrains, whereas in others it is Corydon who takes the lead (cf. Cartault 1897, 191 – 8; see also Clausen 1994, 211). Some scholars (cf. Van Sickle 1986, 147) move on to a structural analysis to justify Thyrsis’ failure; for a discussion of the scholarly debate on the issue, cf. Clausen 1994, 210 – 3. For the various criteria scholars have used in order to justify Corydon’s victory, cf. also Frischer 1975, 17, Zucchelli 1995, 355 – 6, Papanghelis 1995, 327 – 8, 1997, 144. See also Coleman 1977, 226 – 7. 11 Waite 1972, 121 – 3. For amor – not only in a strictly erotic sense – as a decisive factor of Corydon’s victory, see Braun 1971, 404 – 6.

56

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

are also put forward by Fantazzi and Querbach12, while Putnam attributes Thyrsis’ downfall rather to a ‘lack of taste or propriety’13. Egan14 claims that in the last pair of quatrains Thyrsis cannot respond appropriately to Corydon’s learning and sophistication; MacDonald15 sees in Thyrsis’ repetitiveness a ‘lack of inventiveness and quick thinking’ also justifying his defeat, whereas Van Sickle reads in Thyrsis the representative of a new ‘more ambitious and Dionysiac’ poetics16. Allegorical readings17 that view Corydon as the literary persona of Vergil18, in opposition to Thyrsis, have also been proposed since Cerda 1628, 127 (cf. also Dahlmann 1966, 229, Wülfing v. Martiz 1970, 382) 19. In the same frame of mind, Thyrsis is often understood as losing in this poetic contest, because he incarnates one of Vergil’s critics, e. g. Bavius / Maevius, according to Servius, Horace20, Cornificius21. Hubbard 1998, 109 – 10, however, has read the poem as ‘an internal dialogue of Vergilian voices, one positive and idealising [Corydon], the other cynical and deconstructive [Thyrsis]’22, whereas Beyers 1962, 39 – 47 sees in the eclogue an opposition between a ‘poetics of inspiration’ and a ‘poetics of intellect’. More conclusively, Papanghelis23 has tried to justify Corydon’s victory by examining the relation of both Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ quatrains with Callimachean and neoteric poetics and aesthetics. Whereas, for example, Corydon exhibits a learned diction betraying Hellenistic learning, Thyrsis is obsessed with invidia24 and the mala lingua of Codrus, 12 Fantazzi – Querbach 1985, 355 – 67. 13 Putnam 1970, 251. 14 Egan 1996, 233 – 9. Stégen 1955, 101 also thinks that Thyrsis is beaten in the last quatrain; see also Klinger 1967, 124, Rosenmeyer 1969, 159, Skutsch 1971, 28. 15 MacDonald 2003, 206 – 7. 16 Van Sickle 1978, 172 – 3. 17 Cf. especially Coleiro 1979, 160 – 2, Hubbard 1998, 109 and n.131. For a detailed overview of allegorical interpretations of the poem, beyond the scope of the present chapter, cf. more recently Starr 1995, 129 – 38, especially 134 ff. 18 For Corydon’s identification with Vergil, cf. also Servius ad. 7.21. 19 Yet both singers exhibit in their speech roughly the same amount of Theocritean allusions, cf. Hubbard 1998, 109 – 10 and n.132. 20 Cf. Savage 1963, 256 – 8, Nethercut 1968, 93 – 8. 21 Cf. DeWitt 1923, 155. 22 Cf. also Thill 1979, 45 – 6, Perret 1961, 83. 23 Papanghelis 1995, 116 ff., 1997, 144 – 57. 24 For the invidia of Thyrsis vs. amor as the subject matter in Corydon’s lyrics, cf. Schäfer 2001, 121 – 2.

‘Unpastoral Dispositions’ and Neoteric Defects

57

i. e., with notions which are clearly condemned in the programmatic prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia. The present chapter has as its aim to reexamine Corydon’s final victory over Thyrsis and to argue for further possible reasons for this outcome. More particularly, I shall argue that, in opposition to Thyrsis, Corydon establishes himself as a better representative both of the pastoral world and of pastoral poetry of the neoteric kind, whereas Thyrsis propounds in his quatrains ideas and motifs which are alien not only to the ‘pastoral ideal’ but also to the poetry of neoteric flavour in general. As a consequence, within a bucolic poem, in a bucolic contest, the contestant who wins is the one who is the best reincarnation of pastoralism, and, what is more, the one whose subject matter has no negative associations, not only within pastoral but also in Roman neoteric poetry in general. The present eclogue seems to operate not only on the dichotomy ‘pastoral vs. unpastoral’ but rather on the more general ‘generic distinction’ between the genus tenue and the genus grande, and, hence, it is on this basic ‘generic differentiation’ that the analysis to follow will be largely based.

‘Unpastoral Dispositions’ and Neoteric Defects The two quatrains in lines 45 – 52 are of crucial importance for the outcome of the contest. In the first quatrain (vv. 45 – 8), Corydon sings about mossy fountains (muscosi fontes), soft grass (somno mollior herba) and a green arbutus (viridis…arbutus), the spreading shade of which screens his flock from the heat. Corydon clearly contemplates the heat of a summer noon (vv. 47 – 8: solstitium pecori defendite: iam venit aestas torrida), against which the goats are protected by the shade of the trees and the coolness of the water. In other words, Corydon sings about a typical pastoral landscape, viewed in the pastoral time par excellence, a hot midday in summer. Besides, the midday heat is a time for poetic inspiration, a ‘poetological moment’, the time when men meet with gods (cf. Call. Hymn. 5.72 – 4, Papanghelis 1989, 54 – 61, Hunter 1999, 74); thus Corydon takes up a topic associated not only with the process of poetic production in general but also with the composition of pastoral song in particular, since both Theocritean programmatic idylls (1.15 – 8, 7.21) represent bucolic singing / piping also as taking place in the summer noon. Ice, snow and cold northern winds are inconceivable in the pastoral landscape; the requirements of pastoral cannot be fulfilled without the heat of summer or good weather

58

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

conditions in general25 and the long hours of noon. Thyrsis, on the other hand, sings about a winter landscape, vv. 49 – 52: even though he speaks about a hearth, pitchy brands and fires that make the timbers black with soot, these are represented as the outcome of human effort, set against the destructive power of winter. Winter imagery appears in the ninth pseudotheocritean idyll as well, namely in Menalcas’ lyrics, vv. 19 – 21; yet, even in this case, the image bears negative associations, as it is connected with a toothless person’s desire to eat porridge / soft cake or bread, due to his inability to enjoy tasty hazelnuts (cf. also the renunciation of winter by Myrson in Bion fr. 2). Winter, cold and bad weather in general have no place in either bucolic or its urban equivalent, elegy of the neoteric kind, and, when they do appear, they mostly have further negative associations: winter / bad weather is thus mainly associated with the frustration of both the elegiac and the pastoral lover26. The poet’s beloved abandons the poet in favour of an erotic rival, (usually) a soldier, and follows him in places where winter, snow and cold prevail. This is the case with Propertius’ Cynthia, who is about to follow her lover to the icy front in 1.8a.7 – 8. Therefore, the poet expresses his fear lest the legs of his beloved suffer because of the cold (vv. 7 – 8: tu pedibus teneris positas fulcire pruinas, tu potes insolitas, Cynthia, ferre nives?). Similarly Gallus, the elegiac lover / poet, operating in the ‘host pastoral genre’ of the Vergilian eclogue 1027, suffers because Lycoris, his sweetheart, also pursues her soldier to the cold front, (vv. 22 – 3: ‘Galle, quid insanis?’ inquit. ‘tua cura Lycoris perque nives alium perque horrida castra secuta est’). Gallus expresses a similar fear that 25 Cf. also Theocr. 6.4, 7.21 – 3, 138 – 43, [Theocr.] 9.12, Verg. Ecl. 1.1 – 5, 2.8 – 13, 3.56 – 7, 98. 26 Despite the fact that Thyrsis is clearly presented as immune, i. e., not exposed, to cold weather, the subject matter he chooses to develop, on the other hand, is evidently associated with winter and bad weather imagery (Verg. Ecl. 7.49 – 52), although as a foil to his cosiness in a warm cabin. Hence one cannot, of course, claim a direct equation of Thyrsis with both the elegiac and the pastoral lover, afflicted himself by the adverse weather conditions; nevertheless, what matters here is the very song-topic Thyrsis opts for and its associations, countering both the climate prerequisites of pastoral and the erotic bliss of the bucolic as well as the elegiac lover. 27 With the exception of Verg. Ecl. 7 and 10, winter imagery has no place in Vergilian pastoral; Verg. Ecl. 2.22 and 5.70 are only passing references associated with Corydon’s all year milk supply as well as Daphnis’ offerings also not affected by the change of tempora anni, and thus do not constitute the main focus of the pastoral narrative, as is the case with the seventh eclogue.

‘Unpastoral Dispositions’ and Neoteric Defects

59

the unfavourable winter conditions could be harmful to Lycoris, (vv. 47 – 9: a!, dura, nives et frigora Rheni me sine sola vides. a, te ne frigora laedant! a, tibi ne teneras glacies secet aspera plantas!). Other instances of a lover’s frustration, once again associated with bad weather, are the following: Propertius decides to distance himself from Cynthia for a while in 1.17; therefore, he decides to leave Rome, on a boat, when wild winds start to blow and high waves put his life into danger28. In Am. 1.9.7 ff. the Ovidian lover, like a soldier, has to overcome several obstacles in order to reach his sweetheart; he walks on high piled snows (congestas…nives, v. 12), is not afraid of swollen east winds (tumidos…Euros, v. 13), bears the cold night (frigora noctis, v. 15) and the snow mingled with dense rain (denso mixtas…imbre nives, v. 16), all on his way to his beloved (vv. 9 – 10: mitte puellam, strenuus exempto fine sequetur amans). In Ovid’s elegy again, namely in Am. 3.6, cf. especially vv. 7 – 8 and 92 – 4, the poet addresses an amnis, which functions as an obstacle to the poet’s desire to get in touch with his darling; this watercourse has no source, but is the result of rain and melted snow (pluviamque nivesque solutas, v. 93), riches that winter offers to the stream (quas tibi divitias pigra ministrat hiemps, v. 94). What is more, on a meta-poetic level, the amnis here also suggests anti-Callimachean / non-neoteric properties, as implied by the accumulation of imagery of non-Callimachean poetological orientation (cf. vv. 1, 8, 95, 105 and the image of the polluted river arguably alluding to the meta-poetic symbolisms of the filthy Assyrian river in the coda of the Callimachean programmatic hymn to Apollo and standing for Telchinian views on poetry29). In a similar way, at Ov. Epist. 19, Leander combats the winds and waves that keep him away from his sweetheart, Hero. In Horace’s lyric poetry too, Venus seems to exhibit a negative disposition towards winter-time. In Carm. 1.4 in particular, the goddess of love, the Cytherea Venus, choros ducit (v. 5), only after winter ends (v. 1: solvitur acris hiems) and the prairies lose the white colour of snow (v. 4: nec prata canis albicant pruinis). 28 In Prop. 2.5 discomforted lovers, namely lovers in wrath, are likened to the Carpathian waves, stirred up by north winds, and to the black clouds affected by south winds. On the other hand, in 2.27 the lover is presented as not being afraid of arms, wild winds, and the mortal Styga herself, let alone when the wind brings him his sweetheart’s voice. Cf. also Call. Ep. 63 Pf., A.P. 5.167, 168, 189, 263; see also Tib. 1.4.41 ff., Ov. Ars 2.231 – 2, 235 – 6, Murgatroyd 1991, 76, 81 – 2. 29 Cf. also Antoniadis 2006, 283 – 4.

60

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

Moreover, in Hor. Carm. 3.26.9 – 10, Venus is portrayed as protecting Cyprus and Memphis, the latter explicitly characterised as carentem Sithonia nive. Similarly, the frustrated love of a paqajkaus_huqom / the j_lor, a quite common elegiac / lyric theme, is again often associated with winter-time or bad weather in general. In Carm. 3.10 for example, Horace portrays the excluded lover as lying in front of Lyce’s unyielding door, unprotected from the wild north winds and the snow (vv. 1 – 8). And a similar incident appears in Carm. 3.7, where the poet draws the image of Gyges, a young man in love, who, sleepless, cries in the cold nights (vv. 6 – 7: frigidas noctis), during which he is away from his beloved. Likewise in Tib. 1.2.7 ff. the exclusus amator appears to be coping with hard rain (v. 7: imber), and in Prop. 1.16.21 ff., as in 2.9a.41, the unrequited lover must face the bitter cold (cf. v. 24: frigidaque Eoo me dolet aura gelu). Similarly, in Ov. Am. 2.19.22 the lover has to endure a cold night: longa pruinosa frigora nocte pati; see also 1.6.65. Thus Thyrsis employs motifs which not only are alien to the pastoral landscape itself but which also (within the conventions of both Roman pastoral and love elegy / erotic lyric of rather Callimachean – neoteric aspirations) allude to the poet’s loss, the loss of or distance from his beloved. Last but not least, it is also significant that the abandoned elegiac lover is often presented as experiencing cold, cf. Tib. 1.8.39 – 40, Ov. Am. 3.5.42, Ars 3.70, Epist. 1.7, 19.69)30. A further image threatening ‘pastoral space’ is that of the menacing wolf; the wolf is conceived as danger to the flock31. Wild beasts appear in the Vergilian pastoral world, but, in opposition to real life as well as to the Greek pastoral tradition, they mostly live harmoniously with other creatures of nature, more often than not in pathetic fallacy contexts. Elsewhere, i. e., apart from the passage under discussion (Verg. Ecl. 7.51 – 2), ferae (a qualifying substantive suggesting the fear-provoking ability of wild beasts) are represented as peacefully enjoying the music of the bucolic landscape32. Thus the wild beasts of the sixth bu30 Cf. also Murgatroyd 1991, 245. 31 For this imagery as alien to pastoral world, see also Putnam 1970, 245. For vv. 51 – 2, see also Stégen 1955, 103 – 5. 32 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 79 – 80, 318 – 9 and n.48. See also Schultz 2003, 206 speaking about ‘the unity of man and nature’, characteristic of the bucolic kind. In the second eclogue (v. 63: torva leaena lupum sequitur, lupus ipse capellam) the wolf is depicted as pursuing a goat; however, the image has positive associations, since it is placed within an amorous context. The wolf pursues the

‘Unpastoral Dispositions’ and Neoteric Defects

61

colic are depicted as sporting in rhythmic dance (vv. 27 – 8). Besides, in the first Theocritean idyll (vv. 71 – 2), jackals, wolves and lions mourn over Daphnis’ sufferings as is also the case with the Carthaginian lions of the fifth eclogue, which tuum (i. e., Daphnis’)…ingemuisse…interitum (vv. 27 – 8). Finally, in the Messianic fourth eclogue, the cattle is represented as fearless in front of the lions (vv. 21 – 2, cf. also 8.52 where ovis ultro fugiat lupus). Within the Roman genus tenue of the neoteric kind it is in the elegiac world that wild animals appear as intimidating, with the added characteristic of being often related to the loss of the beloved, the highest elegiac value, and thus, having, once more, a negative colouring. This is the case, for example, with Propertius’ Milanion, who, in his effort to cope with Atalanta’s cruelty in 1.1.9 ff., comes across hirsutas… feras (v. 12), while roaming the glens of Parthenius. The same also holds good for the elegiac passion of Gallus in the tenth Vergilian bucolic, who, in a similar vein with Milanion, decides to go in silvis, inter spelaea ferarum (v. 52). Hence, it is not only the winter imagery but also the wild wolves that suggest topics running counter to pastoral ideals, and are often negatively connected, within neoteric poetry (consisting mainly of pastoral and elegy / amorous lyric poetry), with the loss of the beloved.

goat, just as Corydon chases after his sweetheart, Alexis. This is a common image, alluding to homoerotic love; see also Clausen 1994, 83. A similar context appears in 3.80: triste lupus stabulis, where the rage of Amaryllis is likened to the wolf; the image of the wolf is once more here figuratively associated with the discomfort of the (pastoral) lover. A further depiction of wolves with harmful intent appears in Verg. Ecl. 9, crucially implying, however, a sense of ‘generic dislocation’; Moeris is thus presented as losing his voice, because – according to common belief – wolves saw him first, v. 54. Nonetheless – as fully elaborated in chapter 5, cf. p. 204 – this loss may be read as a symptom of Moeris’ ‘pastoral dislocation’, betraying as it does Moeris’ ‘alienation’ from bucolic space and song, as a result of history’s intrusion into the atemporal, apolitical milieu of previous pastoral tradition.

62

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

Frigidity of Style and Character: Winter Imagery and t¹ xuwq¹m Taking into account that the present eclogue, as is also the case with the whole of Vergilian pastoral poetry, deals with poetics, the contrast between heat and cold, as described above, pp. 57 – 60, may have further (meta-poetic) implications. As previously remarked, p. 54, both contestants, Corydon and Thyrsis, are described as Arcades, i. e., by means of an epithet qualifying the poet-musician of the bucolic landscape aspiring to Callimachean – neoteric poetic values. What is more, the contest itself is presented as a ludus, v. 17, i. e., through a famous neoteric catchword also denoting Callimachean poetics33. Under this perspective, winter, snow and cold may further suggest the notion of B xuwq|tgr (frigus, frigiditas), a rhetorical term denoting, in treatises on style, infelicities of vvor, yet also used for literary criticism, from Aristotle onwards. In Aristophanes too, at Ach. 138 ff.34, Theognis’ imperfect production of a tragedy is associated with a snow-fall in Thrace and frosted rivers; the poet is xuwq¹r and, therefore, xuwq_r poie? (Thesm. 170), thus deserving the nickname wi½m (= snow). In the Thesmophoriazousae, Euripides’ Palamedes is described, due to its stylistic weakness, as a frigid play (v. 848). What is more, Diphilus’ dramas are presented as a means for cooling the wine, since they are as cold as the snow (cf. Machon fr. 16.258 ff.). Thus a further association is drawn between bad literature, cold and snow. The association of bad style and cold is also adopted by the neoteric Catullus for describing low quality rhetoric, alien to neoteric sensibilities. In particular, in c.44 the poet is eager to attend sumptuosas…cenas, v. 9, where, however, the insalubrious influence of a stylistically defective speech, Sestianus’ sermo against Antius, gave the poet a gravedo frigida and a frequens tussis (v. 13) 35. The speech under question was, according to Catullus, plena(m) veneni et pestilentiae (v. 12), thus embodying two important notions patently censured by Callimachean – neoteric poetics, namely poison and pest. Catullus describes bad poets, of the

33 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 116 – 9, Van Sickle 1978, 163 ff. 34 For frigidity of style, cf. van Hook 1917, 68 – 76. 35 Cf. also, once again of a speech (Pompey’s), Cic. Att. 1.14.1: itaque frigebat; see also Gibson 2006, 275.

Frigidity of Style and Character: Winter Imagery and t¹ xuwq¹m

63

non-neoteric kind, Caesios, Aquinos and Suffenum 36, as venena (c.14.19: omnia colligam venena), clearly alluding to the Callimachean portrait of the Telchines, Callimachus’ literary enemies, who are b\sjamoi, c|gter and vhomeqo_, full of venomous disposition, cf. Aet 1.1 ff. Similarly, in Epist. 2.1.157 – 9, when describing the archaic inelegant Saturnian lines, Horace characterises this archaic poetry, in clear contrast to the munditiae and their neoteric associations, as virus: sic horridus ille defluxit numerus Saturnius, et grave virus munditiae pepulere. Thus, Sestianus’ speech, full of anti-Callimachean poison, is alien to the standards adopted by neoteric circles37. Therefore, the winter imagery in this Vergilian eclogue, i. e., a poem of obvious poetological nuances, may also have meta-poetic implications, suggesting the notion of xuwq|m, which in neoteric terms seems, as shown above, to be standing for literature not aspiring to neoteric ideals. A further element pointing to a poetological reading of the winter image in question, reinforcing the potential poetological symbolism of the xuwq|m, as elaborated above, pp. 62 – 3, comes from the torrentia flumina (v. 52). The image of the rapid stream has clear meta-poetic connotations and time and again stands for poetry also not aspiring to qualities exhibited by the neoteric poetical production. In Carm. 4.2, for example, Horace equates Pindar’s lyric poetry with a swift flow (monte decurrens velut amnis, v. 5), which is different from his neoteric lyrics, of a clear Callimachean disposition in their combination of small size and laborious work (Callimachus’ programmatic s}mtomor !cqupm_g, Call. Ep. 27.4 Pf.), vv. 31 – 2: operosa parvos carmina fingo. Similarly, in the fifth Vergilian eclogue (vv. 81 ff.), Mopsus claims that Menalcas’ pastoral song gave him more pleasure than the whisper of the south wind, the beating of the waves on the coast, or the sound of streams coursing among rocky valleys (saxosas inter decurrunt flumina valles), cf. also chapter 4, p. 17638. Once more, the neoteric pastoral is qualitatively superior from any water-current of meta-poetic dimension. In the last two lines of the quatrain (vv. 51 – 2), Thyrsis equates himself both with the wolf (lupus) and the torrent (torrentia flumina), when claiming 36 For Caesii, Aquini (v. 18) as non-neoteric poets, presented in conjunction with Suffenus (v. 19), condemned in c.22 as caprimulgus (v. 10) and anti-Callimachean in spirit, cf. Papanghelis 1995, 275. 37 For poison as a term of literary criticism, cf. also Buchheit 1959, 309 – 27, Papanghelis 1995, 277, chapter 2, pp. 118 – 9. 38 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 227 – 8, Schmidt 1972, 220 – 2.

64

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

that hic tantum Boreae curamus frigora, quantum aut numerum lupus aut torrentia flumina ripas, thus associating himself with imagery suggesting anti-Callimachean, non-neoteric poetic quality39. Additional confirmation comes from [Demetrius’] Peq· 2qlgme_ar, a thorough examination of t¹ xuwq|m, where frigidity (t¹ xuwq¹m) is presented as analogous to arrogance (!kafome_a)40. Cf. 119: Ja· jah|kou bpo?|m t_ 1stim B !kafome_a, toioOtom ja· B xuwq|tgr. Crucially, conceit is the vice that characterises Thyrsis in the present eclogue; he presents himself as one of the best singers of the pastoral world, he asks the shepherds to crown him with ivy, and, in an outburst of self-praise and satisfaction, he claims that Codrus, the famous singer whose songs rank next to Phoebus’ (vv. 22 – 3: proxima Phoebi versibus ille facit, according to Corydon41), will eat his heart out with envy, vv. 25 – 6. Furthermore, he asks to be covered by baccar (vv. 27 – 8) as a talisman against Codrus’ evil tongue42. Arrogance is related, according to [Demetrius], to frigidity of style, which in this case is also suggested by the winter / cold / rapid stream imagery of Thyrsis’ lyrics. A further trait of the frigid style involves, according to [Demetrius] again, rhythmical / metrical imperfection; the composition is frigid, when it lacks good rhythm or any rhythm whatsoever, or when prose is used in poetry and metrical phrases are constantly introduced in prose (117: S}mhesir d³ xuwq± B lµ euquhlor, !kk± %quhlor owsa, 118)43. What constitutes good rhythm, is, of course, in the ‘ear of the listener’; yet one should argue, with some degree of plausibility, that ‘deviation’ from standard scansion-practices, exhibited by the versifier in the whole of his poetic oeuvre, may have a specific stylistic effect. Sandbach 1933, 216 – 9 has already pointed out two deficiencies in Thyrsis’ lyrics; in line 35, where there is a ‘weakness’ (term of the au39 For water resources as an imagery for poetics, cf. also Schultz 2003, 209 – 10, Berg 1974, 4 – 6, Leclercq 1996, 602 – 7. 40 Cf. van Hook 1917, 71 – 2. 41 Commenting upon Corydon’s meo Codro (v. 22), Papanghelis 1997, 150 – 1 points out the literary implications of the possessive pronoun, conveying not only affection but also shared literary aims amongst Neoterics. 42 Both the ivy and the baccar are presented, in the fourth Vergilian eclogue (vv. 18 – 20), as gifts for the ‘holy baby’, who will start the New Golden Age; see also Putnam 1970, 232, Van Sickle 1986, 146. Thus, Thyrsis demands for himself and his ‘qualities’, as a poet-singer of the pastoral landscape, a combination of emblematic plants that are attributed to the all-important baby, destined to change history. Hence, his arrogance is intratextually further highlighted. 43 Cf. van Hook 1917, 72.

Frigidity of Style and Character: Winter Imagery and t¹ xuwq¹m

65

thor) in the compulsory stop after both fecimus and before the si clause that follows44, and the elision of the pyrrhic in v. 41. Although not unheard of, as Skutsch 1971, 28 claims, both pyrrhic word elision and fourth trochee caesura, as found in line 41, are extremely rare and give a nuance of ‘harshness’ (cf. also Sandbach 1933, 218) to Thyrsis’ versification. A further unusual elision occurs in line 27 in si ultra 45. This last atypical elision occurs in lines where Thyrsis plainly gives vent to his arrogance, namely, when asking to be crowned with baccar, lest he will suffer the side-effects of Codrus’ mala lingua. In other words, Thyrsis slips into a metrical failing, at the moment he is proclaiming his superiority as a poet-singer; he, who is supposed to have surpassed even Codrus, who is closest to Phoebus himself in poetic ability, fails to adhere to the normal metrical practice and becomes guilty of irregularities of scansion, at the very moment he declares his supremacy. More recently, Veremans 1964 – 5, 35 – 57 has plausibly proposed that Thyrsis loses in this poetic contest, because he fails to adhere to Vergil’ s metrical practice; in the case of the fourth-foot diaeresis, elision and coincidence of ictus and accentus, Corydon is closer to Vergilian preferences. If one reads these metrical exceptions in this way, i. e., as ‘deviation’ from normal scansion-practice for stylistic reasons, then it is plausible to hold that these metrical abnormalities add to Thyrsis’ frigidity of style and ridicule his arrogance, which also corresponds to the xuwq¹m style46. 44 For Clausen 1994, 210 and n.4 this ‘metrical defect’ seems ‘more apparent than real’; see also Townend 1969, 339. 45 Cf. also Clausen 1994, 211 and n.4. 46 Fantazzi – Querbach 1985, 366 locate further ‘inharmonious’ instances in Thyrsis’ lines, e. g the steady sequence of hissing, rhymed sibilants in lines 65 – 8 and the prosaic saepius at si me (v. 67), where one finds a series of three long monosyllables, unusual, in the first part of the line, within the bucolics. As to lines 33 ff. the same authors (pp. 360 – 1 and nn.13, 14) also observe the following significant peculiarities of scansion: the metrical sequence in sinum lactis (v. 33), consisting of three long syllables and one short at the head of the verse without any accompanying function worlds (like quamvis or quantum) or proper nouns, short monosyllables at the end of the second foot with a third monosyllable following (sat est, v. 34), line ending in two monosyllables without repetition of the same world, namely at tu in v. 35 (cf. also Albini 1951, 166). The above phenomena are uncommon in the Eclogues and, thus, may have a specific stylistic effect in assigning to Thyrsis either a peculiar rhythm (metrical flaws and unusual scansions, avoided elsewhere) or prosaic implementing (intrusion of prosaic words and rhythm in poetry). Both suggest frigidity of style. For metrical imperfections in Thyrsis’ lines, see also Pöschl 1964, passim.

66

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

Gods, Goddesses and Daphnis the Referee A further dimension which seems to account for the relative superiority of Corydon in this contest has to do with the deities the two contestants call upon. Corydon mentions Apollo (vv. 22, 62, 64), Phoebus’ sister, Diana, named Delia in v. 29, after her brother’s birthplace name D^kior, Bacchus (v. 61) and finally Venus (v. 62), whereas Thyrsis invokes only Dionysus (v. 58) and his son, Priapus (vv. 33 ff.), as evidenced from both Paus. 9.31.2 and Tib. 1.4.7. What is more, apart from these direct references to Bacchus, Thyrsis proceeds to some indirect allusions to the god of wine: at v. 25 he asks to be covered with hedera, ivy, a plant sacred to Bacchus and used to decorate his thyrsus, a fennel staff rounded off with a bouquet of ivy, or a pine cone with ivy and vine leaves47; at vv. 27 – 8 he wants to have his brow circled with baccar, a plant which, as Coleman 1977, 136 claims, ‘may well have been given a false etymology from Bacchus’48 ; and, finally, the etymological connection between the name Thyrsis and thyrsus, the dionysiac emblem49, is quite unmissable. Thus Thyrsis is presented as referring to lesser deities of the pastoral pantheon, as described in the introduction, cf. especially pp. 18 – 9, and thus falls short of his ‘pastoral opponent’. Corydon’s appeals to the divine, however, seem to have a further significance, when considered in terms of Callimachean – neoteric poetics again. In opposition to Thyrsis, who refers, directly or indirectly, to Dionysus only, Corydon’s quatrains contain features that can be related either to Bacchus or to Phoebus, predominantly in the latter’s function as the leading inspiring deity of Callimachean poetics. In v. 37 e. g. the Nymph Galatea, a familiar figure of Hellenistic poetry, has clear Callimachean associations; it is described as sweeter than Hyblean thyme (thymo…dulcior Hyblae), that is by means of an epithet having clear poetological nuances. Papanghelis 1995, 127 – 8 has persuasively remarked that both dulcis (= sweet) and Hyblean honey, being lekiwq|m, may be taken to allude to the prologue of the Callimachean Aetia (v. 16), 47 Cf. Coleman 1977, 161. 48 Cf. also Sullivan 2002, 47. 49 For the etymological association of the name Thyrsis with the bacchic h}qsor, cf. also Coleman 1977, 207, Van Sickle 1986, 140, Schäfer 2001, 110. For the function and the importance of significant names in Vergil’s Eclogues, see also O’ Hara 1996, 243 and passim, Sullivan 2002, 44.

Gods, Goddesses and Daphnis the Referee

67

where poetry aspiring to Callimachean spirit is sweet like honey and is described as !gdom_der…lekiwq|teqai or to v. 11, where again poetic works of Callimachean standards, as is (part of) Mimnermus’ poetry, are characterised by means of the adjective ckuj}r. Goney is presented in Theocritus’ bucolic poetry too as the poet’s nourishment par excellence; in v. 146 of the first idyll, for example, the unnamed goatherd wishes that Thyrsis’ mouth be filled with honey, and a similar image appears in vv. 78 – 85 of the seventh idyll50. What is more, Galatea is presented not only as sweeter than honey from Hyblean Megara, but, in conjunction with her sweet qualities (v. 37), she also (v. 38) shines whiter than a swan (candidior cycnis) and is lovelier than pale ivy (hedera formosior alba). If Hyblean honey alludes to Callimachean poetics, the same can be argued for the swan-symbolism. In Antipater’s epigram on Erinna (A.P. 7.713), her poetic production is described as brief and swan-like. Clearly this swan-like poetry of Erinna is of modest size and of slender form, like Callimachean poetry, inspired by Apollo. In Callimachus’ svqac·r in the Hymn to Apollo (vv. 111 – 2), it is Apollo, as the god of poetic inspiration, who tells Envy where he derives his poetic impulse from: p_dajor 1n Req/r ak_cg kib±r %jqom %ytom. The poetry Apollo prefers is that of few lines, composed jat± kept|m, the one that Callimachus also opts for, in opposition to lengthy poetic works, symbolised by the filthy Assyrian river (v. 108: )ssuq_ou potalo?o l]car N|or). Furthermore, in the programmatic prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia, it is Apollo again who compares anti-Callimachean poetry to the wild road (v. 27), denoting burdensome length and inept bulk, and he is the one to dictate that the poet Callimachus nourish his Muse slender (v. 24: LoOsam…keptak]gm). Furthermore, Callimachus presents (Hymn. 4.249 ff.) swans chanting at Apollo’s delivery, and swans drawing the god’s chariot is a common image (Alcaeus 142, scholia to A.R. 2.498, Wendel 168.18; see also Nonus D. 38.206)51. Besides, in Roman poetry of the neoteric kind and in Propertius in particular, love-poetry aspiring to Callimachean – apollonian ideals is symbolised as a niveus cycnus in opposition to the fortis equus depicting epic poetry, alien to neoteric standards, cf. Prop. 3.3.39 – 40: contentus niveis semper vectabere cycnis, nec te for50 Cf. Putnam 1970, 238. 51 Cf. Williams 1978, 20. For the poetic symbolisms of the swan, see also Putnam 1970, 239.

68

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

tis equi ducet ad arma sonus 52. Finally, the relationship of the hedera, to which Galatea is compared (hedera formonsior alba), with Dionysus’ worship has been previously discussed, p. 66. Sullivan 2001, 41 ff. claims that, whereas Corydon incarnates apollonian ideals, Thyrsis is a follower of Dionysus; and this explains Thyrsis’ defeat, especially if one takes into account the antagonism between the two deities in both the Hellenistic and the Roman period. However, this claim has two main drawbacks; firstly, it has already been shown that, although Thyrsis exhibits in his quatrains direct or oblique references to Dionysus only, this is not the case with Corydon, who combines in his speech mention of and indirect references to Apollo and Dionysus, both belonging, as will be shown more extensively in chapter four, cf. pp. 159 – 60, to the pastoral pantheon. Secondly, it is certainly not true that Apollo and Dionysus are always opponents in the field of poetic inspiration. On the contrary, Dionysus shared with Apollo the role of god of poetry in both the Greek and the Roman tradition53. The two deities, in conjunction with the Muses, are represented as a poetic trinity in Callimachus’ first Iamb (fr. 191.7 – 8 Pf.) as well54. The same also holds true for several Roman poetic works of the neoteric kind. In 3.4.43 – 4 of the Corpus Tibullianum, the chaste poet rightly has the protection of Phoebus, Bacchus and the Muses: casto nam rite poetae Phoebusque et Bacchus Pieridesque favent. Although Phoebus is presented as having the superior ability, in opposition to the other two members of the ‘holy poetic trinity’, to foresee the future (vv. 45 ff., (in any case he is the leading divinity of the Callimachean genus tenue)), it is important that, as far as poetic inspiration is concerned, all three divinities grant their favour to the virtuous poet. This collaboration between the three deities appears also in Propertius. In 3.2 the poet of love has the Muses as his escorts (v. 15: Musae comites), while the young ladies are enchanted by the poet’s verses, when he is under the propitious auspices of both Dionysus and Apollo (v. 9: nobis et Baccho et Apolline dextro). The same also applies in an ‘aetiological elegy’ of Propertius’ fourth book, namely 4.6.75 – 6, where again the Muses 52 See also Ov. Met. 10.708 – 9, Ars 3.809 – 10, Stat. Silv. 1.2.146, 3.4.22. In Carm. 2.20, when addressing Maecenas, the lyric poet Horace asserts that, even after his death, in the form of a swan, a common poetic symbolism, he will still charm people with his songs. 53 Cf. Kambylis 1965, 166 – 70, Fedeli 1985, 140. 54 Cf. also Ep. 8 Pf., where it is upon Dionysus that Callimachus calls for poetic success.

Gods, Goddesses and Daphnis the Referee

69

along with Bacchus and Phoebus are associated with poetic inspiration (ingenium positis irritet Musa poetis: Bacche, soles Phoebo fertilis esse tuo). Finally, in Ars. 3.347 – 8: o ita, Phoebe, velis, ita vos, pia numina vatum, insignis cornu Bacche novemque deae, Ovid asks Apollo, Dionysus and the Muses to grant him poetic immortality through the success of his work, the Amores, the Ars Amatoria and the Epistulae, that is his work on love, composed in the manner of Roman Callimacheanism. The ‘holy combination’ appears also in Horace, and, what is more, in the programmatic Carm. 1.32, where Horace is self-portrayed as the new Latin lyric poet (lyric poetry belongs up to a point to neoteric production), and asks his lyre to inspire him with new lyric songs. In the ode, the Lesbian craftsman (Alcaeus), who crafted the lyre to which the ode is dedicated and which Horace addresses as decus Phoebi (v. 13), is represented as singing of both Bacchus and the Muses (v. 9: Liberum et Musas Veneremque). As already discussed, whereas Thyrsis calls upon Bacchus alone, Corydon combines in his lyrics references to both Apollo and Dionysus. As to the Muses, the last member of a ‘Neoteric Holy Trinity’, there is only one, indirect, reference to them in Corydon’s speech: in v. 21, where the Muses are addressed as Nymphs, Nymphae, noster amor, Libethrides, not surprisingly, since the Nymphs are the Muses of the pastoral landscape55. Servius here cites Varro as his authority for the identification of the Nymphs with the Muses, ipsae sunt Nymphae quae et Musae. Apart from imparting a ‘divine’ neoteric colouring, Corydon’s references not only to Bacchus but also to both Nymphs and Apollo make him a better representative of the pastoral pantheon, consisting mainly of these three divinities along with Pan. In other words, by his careful selection of the gods that he refers to, Corydon proves himself a more representative delegate of both the pastoral world and neoteric poetic values. The adjective Libethrides and the parenthetic apposition, (i. e., the parenthetical position of the appositional syntagm noster amor), also known as schema Cornelianum (cf. Skutsch 1956, 198 – 9) 56,

55 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 212, Perret 1961, 79, Berg 1974, 124; see also Canetta 2008, 209 – 23. 56 Even though it is now believed that the scheme in question was not introduced in Roman literature by Gallus, it is plausible to hold that it was influenced by him, cf. Papanghelis 1997, 147. For the so-called ‘parenthetic apposition’, also known as ‘inserted apposition’, cf. Solodow 1986, 129 – 53. See also Ross 1975, 69 and n.2, who thinks that Ecl. 1.57: nec tamen interea raucae, tua cura, palumbes,

70

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

constituting a bucolic ‘generic marker’ on the stylistic level, give the line both a pastoral colouring and the flavour of profound Hellenistic learning57, indispensable in neoteric poetry. Whereas Corydon addresses the Muses (vv. 21 ff.), in his response quatrain (vv. 25 ff.) Thyrsis chooses not to invoke them in turn, but addresses himself to his fellow shepherds instead (v. 25: pastores) 58. Thus, the fact that Corydon names more deities connected with poetic inspiration, especially poetic inspiration of the neoteric kind, gives him precedence over his rival in this poetic contest. The fact that the umpire of this contest is called Daphnis59 should also not escape attention; the referee bears the name of the ideal singer-shepherd, the archetypical bouj|kor, and is probably, in the case under question, even identified with him. Berg 1974, 128 – 31 thus locates similarities both in the appearance and the ‘dramatic function’ of the two Daphnises, of the fifth (who stands clearly for the model pastoral singer) and the seventh eclogue60. More specifically, the way Daphnis manages to put Meliboeus’ herd back to immediate order, after the head of his flock has gone off, gives the impression of the epiphany of a god61. He rescues Meliboeus’ leader goat, although the latter has told him nothing about the goat’s having gone astray; what is more, Daphnis takes care not only of the goat but also of the whole flock, before even Meliboeus expresses any fear for its safety. A similar reaction to vv. 7 – 13 appears in Servius’ commentary, where the commentator

57 58 59

60

61

where a further instance of an inserted apposition is found, is influenced by Gallus; see also Norden 1927, 117. Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 121 – 3. Cf. also Wülfing v. Martitz 1970, 382. For the relation of Daphnis of the seventh eclogue with the deified Daphnis of the fifth eclogue, see also Coleman 1977, 226: ‘Daphnis the archetypal pastoral musician presides in silence over the contest, and after Ecl. 5 this reversion to his traditional role is symptomatic of Vergil’s temporary return…to a more orthodox conception of the genre’. It has already been argued (cf. Flintoff 1975 – 6, 16 – 26; see also Camilloni 1979 – 80, 304, Saunders 2008, 142 – 3) that in the Eclogues characters bearing the same name may be considered as being the same person. This conclusion is supported not only by the similarity in name but also through a likeness of character traits and style. Flintoff examines mainly the case of Menalcas and comes to the conclusion that his character is being gradually developed in the corpus of the Vergilian bucolics. This may also be the case with Daphnis here. Cf. Putnam 1970, 226; see also Levi 1998, 60 also speaking of ‘the god Daphnis’.

Gods, Goddesses and Daphnis the Referee

71

(ad 7.9) speaks of a ‘divinity’; one might detect here a typical formulaic flavour in v. 9, uttered by Daphnis (‘Goat and kids are safe’, caper tibi salvus et haedi), as in epiphany stories of literary and holy texts62. This function brings Daphnis of the seventh eclogue closer to the consecrated / deified Daphnis of the fifth63. If so, it is interesting that Daphnis of the fifth eclogue, with whom Daphnis of the seventh is to be identified, is mourned, upon his death, by the Nymphs (vv. 20 – 1: exstinctum Nymphae crudeli funere Daphnim flebant) and Apollo (vv. 34 – 5: postquam te Fata tulerunt, ipsa Pales agros atque ipse reliquit Apollo). As to Daphnis’ association with Bacchus, it is explicitly mentioned that he was the first to introduce the bacchic thiasos, that is, the groups of Bacchants and orgiastic worshippers (v. 30: Daphnis thiasos inducere Bacchi). What is more, after his deification, Daphnis is associated in cult with Demeter, Dionysus (vv. 79 – 80: ut Baccho Cererique, tibi sic vota quotannis agricolae facient), and the Nymphs (v. 75: reddemus Nymphis). A further correlation of Dionysus, Apollo and the sanctified Daphnis comes from Menalcas’ offers. Menalcas dedicates four altars to Daphnis and Phoebus, two for each of them (vv. 65 – 6: sis bonus o felixque tuis! en quattuor aras: ecce duas tibi, Daphni, duas altaria Phoebo), while bacchic wine is included in the libations he offers to the gods (v. 69: et multo in primis hilarans convivia Baccho). As already argued, Corydon, like the Daphnis of the fifth eclogue, who crucially bears the same name with the adjudicator of the seventh eclogue, combines in his verses all three deities; Thyrsis, on the other hand, shows himself a fervent worshipper of Bacchus only. Thus Corydon’s triumph is further anticipated, since he shares the same divine preferences with the ‘arbiter of the contest’. Two further instances in Corydon’s lyrics may also have a bearing on the contest’s outcome, in conjunction again with Daphnis’ function as the umpire of the contest. Whereas Thyrsis in v. 44 speaks about pastured steers (ite domum pasti, si quis pudor, ite iuvenci), Corydon talks, in his corresponding quatrain, about pastured bulls heading for the byre (v. 39: cum primum pasti repetent praesepia tauri). In the fifth eclogue (v. 33: ut gregibus tauri), Daphnis is related, in a simile, to the bull; as bulls are the pride of their flocks, similarly Daphnis is the glory for his people (vv. 33 – 4). The same could also be argued for the image of the vine buds, occurring in Corydon’s diction in v. 48: iam lento turgent in palmite 62 Cf. Pfister 1924, 277 – 323. 63 Cf. also Frischer 1975, 50 – 1.

72

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

gemmae; in the passage from the fifth eclogue mentioned above, Daphnis is likened not only to the bull, but also to the vine and the grapes, which are the glory of the trees and vines respectively (v. 32: vitis ut arboribus decori est, ut vitibus uvae), just as Daphnis is the glory for his intimates. Thus, Corydon, once more, in opposition to Thyrsis, exhibits in his diction features that have the sanction of and are related to the ‘umpire Daphnis’.

Neoteric Language and Style Lucretius Callimachus and his followers view didactic poetry in a positive light, since, in comparison to heroic epic, didactic epic poetry is short in length, thus adhering to the Callimachean – neoteric ideal of akicostiw_a, and gives the poet the opportunity to spread out his varied knowledge, according to Alexandrian and neoteric habits64. Callimachus’ well-known epigram on Aratus (27 Pf.) extolls the latter’s kepta· N^sier with a qualifying epithet, kept|r, suggesting modest size and refined form according to Callimachean poetic ideals, vv. 3 – 4. What is more, Callimachus’ poetic initiation in the Aetia (cf. 2.1 – 2 Pf.), where he meets the Muses on mount Helikon, near the spring Hippocrene, is evidently modeled on Hesiod’s Theogony (vv. 22 – 6) and in the Aratus-epigram, (27.2 Pf.), Callimachus uses the epithet lekiwq|tatom, with its recognisable poetological background, in order to describe (part of) Hesiod’s poetry. In Roman literature as well, didactic epic and, in particular, Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura – the Roman didactic poem par excellence – exerted a great influence on the poets of the Augustan period65, especially on those aspiring to Callimachean – neoteric qualities66. Taking all this into account, it is plausible to suggest that, if one of the two contestants shows in his quatrains a concentration of Lucretian reminiscences in word and imagery, he will be at an advantage with re64 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 144. 65 Cf. also Miller 1997 – 8, 384; see also Giesecke 1993, 412 – 3. For Lucretian allusion in Vergil’s poetry, see also Farrington (1963)–1999, 18 – 26, Breed 2000, 3 – 20. 66 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 143.

Neoteric Language and Style

73

spect to his opponent. Once again, the ‘lucky contestant’ is Corydon67, who displays in his speech the following Lucretian ‘mementoes’: the adjective ramosa, coined by Lucretius for trees (5.1096), atoms (2.446) and clouds (6.133), applied in v. 30 to the deer-antlers68, the monosyllabic scansion of sua in v. 54: sua quaeque sub arbore poma, when agreeing with arbore 69, which has a clear parallel in Lucr. 1.1022, and the combination of stare and iacere in vv. 53 – 4 (stant et … iacent) with an apparent matching in Lucr. 3.887: stansque iacentem 70. The same also holds true for the image in v. 45: muscosi fontes et somno mollior herba, alluding to similar imagery in Lucr. 5.951, 1392 – 371, and for nature’s laughter-metaphor in v. 55: omnia nunc rident (cf. Lucr. 5.1395 – 6) 72.

67 One should not, of course, underestimate here the way in which the ‘sublime’ and ‘cosmic’ themes of Lucretius are often used to ‘burst’ the narrow limits of the pastoral world, notably in Verg. Ecl. 4 and 5 (cf. also Hardie 2006, 275 – 300). Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that the above patterning of Lucretian allusions in the case of Verg. Ecl. 7, not equally distributed in the speech of the two contestants in the singing match under discussion, where a winner is finally declared, cannot be fortuitous. Lucretius’ formative influence on the Roman neoteric movement seems to account for the above spread. 68 Cf. Clausen 1994, 224. 69 Cf. Coleman 1977, 222. This scansion is necessary, unless we want to understand quisque as attracted to the case of suus. 70 Cf. Clausen 1994, 230. I accept the communis opinio in assigning vv. 53 – 6 and 57 – 60 to Corydon and Thyrsis respectively and not vice versa, as Perret 1961, 82 – 3, Fuchs 1966, 218 – 23 and most recently Kraggerud 2008, 105 – 10. 71 Cf. Clausen 1994, 228, Coleman 1977, 219. 72 Cf. Clausen 1994, 230, Putnam 1970, 243. A possible reminiscence of Lucretius in Thyrsis’ lines appears in v. 57, where vitio…aeris may allude to the Lucretian morbidus aer (6.1097). This is possibly also true for v. 60: Iuppiter et laeto descendet plurimus imbri, alluding to Lucretius’ omnis uti videatur in imbrem vertier aether (6.291); see Fantazzi – Querbach 1985, 364, 365. What is important, however, is not a Lucretian reminiscence by itself, but the relative accumulation and variety (on the levels of style and language, metre, imagery) of such allusions in Corydon’s quatrains, and their relative absence from Thyrsis’ lines. What is more, whereas such allusions are scattered throughout Corydon’s verses, this is not the case with Thyrsis’ diction, where the Lucretian hints, consisting of imagery-affinities only, occur in concentration in one quatrain (vv. 57 – 60).

74

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

Neoteric Catchwords It is not only the Lucretian allusions that give Corydon, in opposition to Thyrsis, a priority, as a poet aspiring to neoteric poetics, aesthetic values and preferences. As previously remarked, Corydon’s lines (vv. 37 – 8) evoke neoteric poetics, since they often include catchwords of Callimachean and Roman neoteric aspirations, such as dulcis and the Hyblean honey referring to Callimachus’ lekiwq¹m style, as well as the swan-symbolism, related to Apollo, the god inspiring Callimachean poetry par excellence. Galatea, described as Nerine (v. 37), i. e., by means of an uncommon epithet, the minus usitatum, according to Hellenistic tastes73, is also candidior cycnis and hedera formosior alba, v. 38. The swan-colour, suggested by both candidior and alba, further alludes to Theocritus’ eleventh idyll (v. 20), where Galatea is again described as keujot]qa pajt÷r potide?m, i. e., in a line focusing on the white complexion of her skin as a typical feature of female beauty74. In Roman terms, this makes Galatea a typical candida puella; this syntagm is used in neoteric poetry, i. e., Catullus, in order to describe ladies or, on a symbolic level, works adopting Callimachean and neoteric standards. In Catullus’ 35, for example, the lady, who displays neoteric sensibilities and becomes infatuated with the tener poeta (v. 1) Caecilius, after she has read Magna Mater, his unfinished poem on Cybele, is a candida puella. Cf. vv. 13 – 5: nam quo tempore legit incohatam / Dindymi dominam, ex eo misellae / ignes interiorem edunt medullam. Catullus thus justifies her reaction, since Magna Mater has been composed venuste, v. 17, a key-word denoting composition aspiring to neoteric ideals. The puella who reacts in such a way to the qualities of a neoteric poet not only is candida (v. 8) but also docta (Saphica puella Musa doctior, vv. 16 – 7), a further catchword of Callimachean – neoteric aestheticism. In a similar vein, Fabullus’ candida puella in Catullus’ 13 is also a potential symbolism for poetry of the neoteric kind75. In c.86, another poem where Catullus seems to employ a beauty contest as a metaphor of a literary contrast, 73 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 126 – 7. The epithet is a unique Latin by-form for the patronymic Nereine, found elsewhere, as an emendation by Haupt, in Catullus’ 64.28. See also Fantazzi – Querbach 1985, 361. 74 Cf. also Petrovitz 2002 – 3, 262. For the relation of Galatea’s attributes to poetics, cf. also Putnam 1970, 236 ff. For the Theocritean allusions here, see also Flintoff 1975 – 6, 20, Papanghelis 1997, 154 – 5, MacDonald 2003, 204. 75 Cf. Karakasis 2005a, 97 – 114; for Galatea’s whiteness, cf. also Pöschl 1964, 120 – 1.

Neoteric Language and Style

75

Quintia, whose neoteric literary dimension is evident, is again characterised, among other things, as candida 76, v. 1. Thus the adjective candida, enhanced by alba, may suggest in the Vergilian instance in hand both a woman’s beauty, referring to Galatea as a bucolic character, the Cyclops’ beloved, as well as refinement of the neoteric kind, applicable to ‘Galatea’ as a song, a literary work. The same could also be argued for the adjective formosus. In Catullus’ 86 again, Quintia loses to a superior beauty, Lesbia, who, like Quintia, also has a literary dimension and is characterised by Callimachean ‘slenderness of form and modesty of size’; thanks to these qualities, she is accorded the characterisation of formosa, v. 5. As Papanghelis 1991, 383 – 4 has plausibly suggested, formosus, not a common adjective in Catullus for describing human beauty, is used here in order to denote neoteric ideas with reference both to women and to personified literary genres. Hence, Galatea’s characterisation as hedera formosior alba may also suggest, in conjunction with her two further attributes, her sweetness (dulcis) and whiteness of skin (candida), aestheticism of the neoteric kind. Galatea, the lady, becomes once more ‘Galatea’, a neoteric poetical work. Thyrsis, in his response quatrain, displays features with contrary connotations77. He has Galatea associate herself with the bitter Sardinian crowfoot (v. 41: Sardoniis…amarior herbis), the bristled broom (v. 42: horridior rusco) and the wicked cast-up sea wrack (v. 42: proiecta vilior alga). The bitterness of the crowfoot, often an ingredient for the production of the Sardum mel 78, stands clearly in opposition to the Callimachean sweetness of the Hyblean honey to which Galatea is compared in Corydon’s lyrics. As to horridus, the epithet used to describe the 76 Cf. also Papanghelis 1991, 372 ff. It is true that in c.86 the poet’s beloved, Lesbia, who also has a literary dimension, combats Quintia, who is characterised as candida, longa and recta, vv. 1 – 2. Although Catullus claims that the sum of the three individual qualities is not perfect, because Quintia lacks venustas, v. 3, and in her body (v. 4) there is nulla…mica salis (venustas and sal, two further wellknown catchwords of neoteric aesthetics and poetics), he acknowledges the positive character of the three qualities per se (v. 2: haec ego sic singula confiteor). What has to be added is sal, which will bring neoteric perfection. 77 In vv. 37 – 40 and 41 – 4 Corydon and Thyrsis respectively act out the story of Polyphemus and Galatea, cf. Clausen 1994, 226 – 7, Breed 2006, 22 – 3, 56, 2006a, 349 – 50; see also Heinze 1923, 112, Wülfing v. Martitz 1970, 381. Thus I read Thyrsis’ lines as uttered by the pastoral character, when impersonating Galatea, and not in his own person vs. Zucchelli 1995, 365 and n.44, Schäfer 2001, 112, Kraggerud 2006, 46 – 8. 78 Cf. Coleman 1977, 218, Clausen 1994, 227.

76

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

broom, it too has clear poetological connotations, referring to literature written in an anti-neoteric manner: as we have already seen, p. 63, horridus is the epithet used by Horace in Epist. 2.1.157 – 9 to describe the harshness of the archaic Roman Saturnian verse, composed in a nonneoteric way, in disagreement with the neoteric munditiae, cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 274. An anti-Callimachean attitude is also to be discerned in the use of vilis. As Ovid remarks at Am. 1.15.35, it is common people that admire vilia: vilia miretur vulgus, whereas Callimachus and his followers are characterised by a sense of eclecticism and show unwillingness to accept common taste, the opinion of oR pokko_79. Ovid may contrast here again Callimachean poetry, symbolised as jeke}hour !tqíptour in Aet. 1.27 – 8 Pf., with the poetry of the masses, the vulgar poetry, unequivocally antiCallimachean in nature, identified in the prologue of the Aetia with the wild road (v. 27). Such poetry is vilis, and, as such, suggests baseness, undeniably condemned according to neoteric standards. It should also be noted here that the sea-weed has a dark brown colour80, and this contrasts again with the white colour of Galatea’s skin in Corydon’s quatrain, suggesting, as previously remarked, poetry of Callimachean sensibilities. Thus in opposition to Corydon’s, Thyrsis’ Galatea associates herself, although in counterfactuals, with bitter, vile, coarse and dark brown81, features which present Thyrsis’ ‘Galatea’82 in an anti-neoteric light. Neoteric and anti-neoteric catchwords are thus strewn throughout the whole of the poem; again Corydon is the one who exhibits in his speech catchwords of a neoteric colour, whereas Thyrsis adorns his speech with anti-Callimachean mottos. The notions of ‘big’ / ‘long’ and ‘small’ constitute a further basic Callimachean contrast. It is wellknown that Jakk_lawor b cqallatij¹r t¹ l]ca bibk_om Usom 5kecem eWmai t` lec\k\ jaj` (Deipn. 3.1.1), when supporting the poetry of few lines (akic|stiwom). What is more, in the prologue of the Aetia, 79 Cf. Call. Aet. 1.25 – 32 and especially Ep. 28.3 – 4 Pf.: lis]y ja· peq_voitom 1q~lemom . oqd’ !p¹ jq^mgr p_my, sijwa_my p\mta t± dgl|sia, giving the sense of a reluctance to common belief and taste. 80 Cf. Coleman 1977, 218. 81 Although in counterfactual statements, Galatea does somehow associate herself with notions of negative propensities (bitterness, vileness, darkness, etc.), and this is what matters here, i. e., the very off-putting associations that are, in any case, being evoked. 82 As previously by ‘Galatea’, I understand Galatea as a text / song.

Neoteric Language and Style

77

Callimachus negatively compares the long-scale poetry of his rivals (cf. v. 4: pokka?r…wiki\sim) with the longitude of the Persian league (v. 18: swo_m\ Peqs_di)83. Whereas smallness is suggested by Corydon’s tiny Micon offering a boar’s head and stag antlers to Artemis (cf. vv. 29 – 30: parvus…Micon), the notion of longitude comes from Thyrsis’ day which is longer than a whole year (v. 43: haec lux toto iam longior anno est). In the case of Corydon the notion of ‘small’ is further emphasised by the etymological play, favoured in Hellenistic and Roman neoteric poetry, between parvus (= small) and the proper name Micon, derived from the Greek lijj|r, also meaning ‘petite’84. The hidden etymology imparts to Corydon a touch of hellenising learning, as is also the case with the minus usitatum adjective Nerine (v. 37) for Galatea, the schema Cornelianum in v. 21: Nymphae, noster Amor, Libethrides, and the hapax Libethrides of the same line, referring to the Nymphs, also Callimachean in origin and modeled on Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos (4.49 – 50)85. And such Alexandrian learning brings Corydon closer to his poetical victory. A further contrast of Callimachean flavour exists between the notion of pinguis, on the one hand, and levis, tenuis, mollis, on the other. Antimachus’ Lyde (composed against Callimachean views) is described by Callimachus (fr. 398.1 Pf.) as paw» cq\lla, whereas Callimachus’ Muse is slender (LoOsa keptak]g, Aet. 1.24 Pf.). At the beginning of the Aetia, Apollo gives Callimachus the advice that his Muse be keptak]g, but his sacrifice to the gods, h}or, to be ftti p\wistom, cf. Aet. 1.22 – 4 Pf.. Thus a contrast appears between the slim Muse and the plump sacrificial victim. A similar distinction between large sacrificial size and keptak]g poetry appears also in Vergil, the Roman Callimachus-cum-Theocritus, in Ecl. 6.4 – 5. The god Apollo once again gives the poet the following advice: pastorem, Tityre, pinguis pascere oportet ovis, deductum dicere carmen. Mollis demonstrably has clear poetological associations too; Propertius (1.7.19) describes his love-poetry of the 83 Cf. also Gowers 1993, 151 – 2. 84 Cf. also Pöschl 1964, 113, Bettini 1972, 267, Coleman 1977, 215, Clausen 1994, 223, Egan 1996, 235, O’ Hara 1996, 249, Petrovitz 2002 – 3, 265. 85 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 121 – 2, 126 – 7. The Greek rhythm in v. 53: iuniperi et castaneae hirsutae, with two hiatus with no correption at all and a spondaic ending (cf. Coleman 1977, 221), may also add to the hellenising flavour of Corydon’s diction. The same could also possibly be argued for the caesura after the trochee in the third foot in vv. 37 and 40, which also creates a Greek metrical rhythm; see Fantazzi – Querbach 1985, 361 – 2.

78

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

neoteric kind as mollem…versum, when contrasting elegy and epic. Similarly, when praising the neoteric quality of Vergil’s Eclogues, Horace, in the Satires (1.10.44), also emphasises the molle atque facetum style. Ovid as well, in Pont. 4.16.32, talks about the Callimachi…molle…iter that Proculus, a poet adopting Callimachean principles, has decided to follow86. Thus, whereas Corydon sings about a somno mollior herba (v. 45), Thyrsis chooses as his topic (v. 49) taedae pingues, hic plurimus ignis, suggesting at their turn the notion of ‘large, fat, not slender’. A further important issue involving Callimachean poetics has to do with invidia (= envy): In the prologue of the Aetia again, the Tekw?mer, Callimachus’ literary enemies, are described as b\sjamoi, c|gter, vhomeqo_, as Basjam_gr ako¹m c]mor (v. 17), and, as such, they reproach Callimachus for his poetics. What is more, in the svqac·r of the Hymn to Apollo, it is the personified Envy (Vh|mor) that Apollo, Callimachus’ inspiring god, kicks. As Papanghelis has accurately remarked 1995, 124 – 5, 1997, 149 – 50, by alluding to the notions of ‘envy’ and ‘evil eye / tongue’ at the beginning of the poem (vv. 25 – 8, namely invidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro and ne vati noceat mala lingua futuro), Thyrsis aligns himself with the critics of anti-Callimachean and anti-neoteric strand. The notion of invidia, however, returns in the lyrics of Thyrsis, namely at v. 58: Liber pampineas invidit collibus umbras (‘Bacchus has grudged the hills the shadow of the grapevine’). In Corydon’s lines, on the other hand, we see the budding vines open on the vine shoot (v. 48). Thus Thyrsis associates envy with Dionysus, his protector god, a deity of poetic inspiration, who, however, has, up to a point at least, been included both by Callimachus and his Roman followers, as previously noted, pp. 68 – 9, in the register of the divinities that promote and protect poetry of the Callimachean – neoteric kind. By ascribing an envious disposition to Liber87, however, Thyrsis manages to attribute an anti-Callimachean – anti-neoteric attitude to a god presiding, in texts of neoteric objectives at least, over neoteric poetics as well. Once more Thyrsis, within the text of the neoteric Vergilian Eclogues, exhibits in his lyrics anti-neoteric outlook, which brings him closer to failure.

86 Cf. also Fedeli 1980, 198, Papanghelis 1995, 104. 87 For Liber’s identification with Dionysus, cf. also Coleman 1977, 222 – 3.

Neoteric Language and Style

79

Trees, Plants and Roman Callimacheanism Interesting indications are also offered by the tree comparison of the last quatrain: Corydon (vv. 61 – 4) speaks about the poplar, the vine, the myrtle, the bay and finally the hazel, Phyllis’ beloved tree. All these plants, with the possible exception of the last, are clearly related to the cult of a specific god. The vine is related to Bacchus (v. 61: vitis Iaccho) 88, i. e., to a god, associated at some point, as previously remarked, cf. p. 78, with poetry of the neoteric kind, and the same is true of the myrtle, the plant symbol of Venus (v. 62: formosae myrtus Veneri) 89, the goddess of love and protector of love-poetry of the neoteric kind90. The bay is the holy plant of Apollo (v. 62: laurea Phoebo), the god that inspires Callimachus’ poetry, to be followed by the Roman Neoterics. The white poplar is connected with Hercules, who, however, has no particular relations with neoteric poetry. The neoteric connotations of the plant, nevertheless, are established by means of the minus usitatum patronymic Alcidae, derived from Alceus, Hercules’ alleged grandfather, Amphitruo’s father. This patronymic betrays, once more, as was the case with the Libethrides Muses and the Nerine Galatea, Hellenistic learning of

88 Iacchus (v. 61) is a simple equivalent to Bacchus, cf. Clausen 1994, 183. 89 Horace also in Carm. 1.25 likens tender virgins, capable of inflaming young men with passion, to myrtle and ivy in blossom. 90 Venus and Cupid are clearly in favour of ‘neotericism’, and the evidence comes mainly from the neoteric Catullus. In c.36, Venus and Cupido, the gods of love, become part of a literary quarrel between Catullus and Volusius. Lesbia makes a vow to both Venus and Cupid that if Catullus ceases writing iambic-abusive poetry against her, she will destroy the best poems of the worst poet, whom Catullus equates with Volusius. Thus, the destruction of literature written in an anti-neoteric way is presented as a vow to these gods. Volusius’ chronicle is in the line of the traditional historical epic which Neoterics abhorred, as is also implied by the statement that Volusius’ Annales are pleni ruris et inficetiarum, a cacata carta (vv. 19 – 20), i. e., composed against urbanitas that characterises neoteric way of life and poetics. What is more, whereas in c.36 the loss of poetry, alien to neoteric qualities, and by implication the praise of neoteric poetry, is presented as a vow to Venus and Cupid, in c.13, in a positive manner, the neoteric poetry of Catullus is presented (vs. pleni ruris et inficetiarum for Volusius’ work) as the suavis and elegans gift of these deities, vv. 10 ff. Similarly in c.3 Veneres Cupidinesque (v. 1) are presented as mourning along with all the venusti (et quantum est hominum venustiorum, v. 2, the key-term of neoteric views) for Lesbia’s dead sparrow.

80

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

a neoteric flavour91. What is more, the word appears for the first time in Callimachus, the father of the neoteric poetic sensibilities, in Hymn. 3.145: )kje_dgm92. Finally, as Coleman plausibly remarks 1977, 224, Phyllis, who likes (amat) corylos (v. 63), like Amaryllis in Verg. Ecl. 1.5, has the status of a divinity93 inspiring a bucolic song, a genre again characterised by neoteric qualities. Whereas all Corydon’s plants have, somehow, a neoteric colouring in the sense elaborated above, this is not the case with those of Thyrsis, vv. 65 – 8. Thus the fraxinus, the ash (v. 65), is described, due to its height, by means of the adjective ingens (cf. Verg. G. 2.65 – 6), i. e., by a qualifying epithet which, as a term of literary criticism, has negative connotations of an anti-neoteric trend94. Moreover, the combination of fraxinus and abies in vv. 65 – 6 has a clear parallel in Ennius’ Annales, 6.177: fraxinus frangitur atque abies consternitur alta, where the poet refers to the height of the silver fir. Ennius, however, is the father of the Roman epic, the poetry neoteric production combats par excellence. Cicero at Tusc. 3.45 mentions the negative attitude towards Ennius on the part of the cantores Euphorionis. In the poetological elegy 1.15, the neoteric Ovid, for example, gives the main lines of the poetic programme to be followed, at least in the neoteric Amores. In the matter of poetic artistry, he clearly censures Ennius, who represents archaic epic and traditional Roman values, as arte carens (v. 19), in direct opposition to Callimachus who arte valet (v. 14) 95. Thus, whereas Corydon’s 91 For the neoteric use of a patronymic or a geographical complement instead of the proper name, see also Ross 1975, 62. Camilloni 1979 – 80, 311 – 2, on the other hand, reads here an allusion to epic poetry, whereas Iacchus stands, according to her reading, for the tragic genre. 92 Probus gives the information that Pindar used the word first; cf. Clausen 1994, 231. 93 Cf. also Kraggerud 2006, 49. Egan 1996, 235 – 6 claims that Corydon makes an etymological pun here, based on the Greek root vik- of Phyllis’ name and the Latin root am- from amat. If so, the etymology adds further, along with the etymology of vv. 29 – 30, to the hellenising colour of Corydon’s diction, an important reason for his final success. 94 Ingens characterises Tragedy’s passus in Ov. Am. 3.1.11, standing for anti-neoteric poetic qualities. 95 For the attitude of the Augustan poets towards Ennius, cf. also Marconi 1961, 236 ff., Miller 1983, 277 ff. In spite of a meagre influence of Callimachean poetry, Ennius is clearly in the traditional line of the Homeric epic, cf. also Clausen 1964, 185 – 7. For a polarisation between Ennius and Callimachus, see also Prop. 3.3 and 4.1.61 ff.

Neoteric Language and Style

81

plants seem to display neoteric associations, Thyrsis’ plants allude to anti-neoteric intertexts, namely Ennius’ epic poetry.

Lexical and Syntactic Options Whereas Thyrsis does not hesitate to remind his audience of epic poetry, Corydon is careful not to impart any epic tenor to his lyrics. This is evident in v. 29 where Corydon, or rather Vergil for Corydon’s sake, coins the adjective in -osus, saetosus, i. e., by means of a rather colloquial suffix96, in order to avoid the current in the literature up to then, saetiger, regularly associated with sus. This is probably because that epithet has a clear epic background, which he would prefer to avoid, although saetiger could be a useful variant, since in the next line one finds a further epithet in -osus, namely ramosa 97. The adjective was, as Clausen 1995, 223 remarks, probably found in Ennius, and also occurs several times in epic poetry (Lucr. 5.969, Verg. A. 7.17, 12.170, Ov. Met. 8.359, Stat. Th. 1.397, 8.532 – 3) 98. Saetosus, on the other hand, has clearly a genus tenue pedigree, found in both Horace (Serm. 1.5.60 – 1, Epod. 17.15 – 7) and Propertius (4.1.25). The use of a rather colloquial formation by Corydon may have a further significance, if considered in conjunction with the fact that Daphnis is the referee of the contest. Daphnis’ part in the eclogue is significantly small; he utters only five lines (vv. 9 – 13), during which, however, he has had time to intersperse his diction with a distinct colloquial feature. He thus reveals his penchant for popular language, which, as a rule, is not favoured by the genus grande. The syntactic colloquialism in Daphnis’ speech occurs in v. 9: caper tibi, where the possesive dative / dative of interest tibi replaces a possessive pronoun, tuus, 96 Adjectives in -osus abound in the early writers as well as in the rustic authors, and are also prevalent in Christian authors such as Augustine and Tertullian, who often use colloquial features in their speech. The same fondness for them is seen in the veterinary and medical writers, a further source of sermo plebeius, whereas classical authors use them sparingly. In Cicero, this suffix is not productive, in opposition to more popular writers such as Pliny the Elder. In addition, the Probi Appendix recommends using the suffix -idus instead of -osus: rabidus non rabiosus. See also Cooper 1895, 122 – 32. 97 Cf. also Clausen 1994, 223. 98 For the epic character of saetiger, see also Ernout 1949, 28.

82

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

i. e., caper tibi stands for caper tuus 99. Thus Corydon exhibits in his speech features of a special register, also adopted by the song tester, and this may also anticipate the latter’s eventual victory. However, even while allowing colloquialisms in his language, a primary feature of the bucolic idiom, Corydon does not fail to exhibit his learning, especially of Hellenistic direction, when in vv. 29 – 30 (saetosi caput hoc apri tibi, Delia, parvus / et ramosa Micon vivacis cornua cervi) as well, the omission of the dedicatory verb, as dedicat for example, gives the impression of the Greek epigrammatic style100. The subject of this quatrain of Corydon’s is Micon’s sacrificial offers to Delia (see above and p. 66). Micon also promises that if his luck proves long-lasting, he will offer the goddess a statue in polished marble, with the deity being bound as to her calves (v. 32: puniceo stabis suras evincta coturno). The syntax of this last clause is interesting again, considered within neoteric poetics. The past participle evincta is construed here with an accusative, suras, which can have a twofold syntactic interpretation; either the accusative is the direct object of a past participle, middle in sense, an obsolete verbal aspect in Latin, which also has parallels in Umbrian101, or the accusative can be justified as an accusativus Graecus, i. e., the accusative of reference with a passive past participle. The construction, common in the Latin poetic register, is enhanced, however, by the influence of the Greek syntax, especially in the poetry of the Augustan period. And, what is more, within Vergilian Eclogues, the syntax

99 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 210 – 11, who also points out the colloquial ellipse of esse with salvus (v. 9), a common brachylogy of everyday language without any particular sociolectal significance, and the internal accusative (quid) with cessare (v. 10). I do not think, however, that the supine of goal, potum (v. 11), adds to the impression of a rustic colloquialism. The use of eo + accusative supine construction as a periphrastic future, when the notion of purpose is weak, is an Early Latin feature. For the Early Latin character of the construction, cf. also Maltby 1976, 18, 26, Karakasis 2005, 52 – 3. 100 Cf. Petrovitz 2002 – 3, 268, Kraggerud 2006, 42 – 3; see also Camilloni 1979 – 80, 308, Levi 1998, 60. Fantazzi – Querbach 1985, 360 think that the style of the quatrain alludes to the votive offerings in the sixth book of the Greek Anthology. For the influence of epigrams on Roman (neoteric) poetry, cf. also Berg 1974, 105 – 6. 101 This phenomenon is common mainly with perfect participles of verbs with the sense ‘to clothe’ or ‘to equip’, constructed with the accusative, e. g. indutum… pallam (Plaut. Men. 511 – 2). Cf. Coleman 1975, 123 – 5, 1977, 83 – 4, 216, Petrovitz 2002 – 3, 267.

Neoteric Language and Style

83

noticeably functions, as will be shown, as a marker of neoteric technique102. The construction appears in the Eclogues mainly in the sixth bucolic (four out of five instances of the phenomenon103 in the whole of the Eclogues), which summarises, in verse, the history of the Roman Callimacheanism and is related to subject matters favoured by Roman Neoterics, combined with further common neoteric stylistic features. Apart from 6.15: inflatum…venas, in a part of the eclogue (vv. 13 – 40), where the poet asks the Pierides to proceed to the story of Chromis, Mnasyllos and Silenus, where a cosmological verse-course in the manner of Lucretius is heard, this syntax occurs in 6.53 too, latus…fultus hyacintho, in the story of Pasiphae, i. e., a tale of a grotesque, pathological love-passion, belonging to Parthenius’ Peq· 9qytij_m Pahgl\tym, also found in both Callimachus (Hymn. 4.311) and in Roman neoteric texts (Prop. 2.28b.52, 4.7.57 – 8, Ov. Ars 1.289 – 326, Met. 8.136 ff.)104. What is more, the construction occurs near a further marker of the neoteric style, namely the apostrophe to the heroine, followed by the interjection a! in the previous line (v. 52: a! virgo infelix), common in the neoteric epyllion105. Furthermore, the accusative syntagm occurs in a part of the eclogue, where one story (the punishment of Proetus’ daughters) is interwoven with another story (Pasiphae’s myth). The accusative-participle combination along with the a! + address syntagm belong to the first two lines (vv. 52 – 3), where the narrative changes from Proetus’ daughters (vv. 48 – 51) back to the Pasiphae’s tale (vv. 45 – 7 and 52 – 60). This type of inclusion of one story into another, similar in context, is a further neoteric marker, characterising the neoteric epyllion again, namely Catullus’ 64106. The tale within a tale structure, however,

102 Cf. Coleman 1977, 84, 197. 103 3.106 – 7: inscripti nomina…flores is clearly under Greek influence, since the subject of the participle is not the agent of the verbal action; thus the syntax is passive. Passive seems also to be the construction in 8.4: mutata suos requierunt flumina cursus, cf. Coleman 1977, 126, 228. 104 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 189, Papanghelis 1995, 148 – 9, 332 and n.144, Armstrong 2006, 169 – 77 (see especially p. 170: ‘the myth of Pasiphae is of particular appeal to the poet in neoteric guise’). 105 Cf. also the line from Calvus’ Io (poet. 9.1), a virgo infelix, herbis pasceris amaris; see also Fordyce 1961, 288, Papanghelis 1995, 149. For a! as a neoteric exclamation, cf. also Ross 1975, 73 and n.4, 80. 106 Cf. Griffiths 1980, 123 – 37, Papanghelis 1995, 150 – 1.

84

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

is also favoured by the Hellenistic authors and is exemplified mainly by Callimachus’ Hecale. A further instance of the construction appears in 6.68: apio crinis ornatus amaro, which describes the poetic initiation of Cornelius Gallus, clearly alluding to the equivalent Hesiodic initiation (Th. 22 ff.), upon which is modeled the poetic inspiration of Callimachus, described in Aet. 2.1 – 2 Pf. Apollo (vv. 66, 73), the Muses (v. 69), the Aonian hills (v. 65), the syntagm Ascraeo…seni (v. 70) all point to this direction. The same also holds for the Permessus river (v. 64), which in Propertius’ poetological 2.10.26 (sed modo Permessi flumine lavit Amor) stands as an emblem for Propertius’ neoteric love-poetry itself 107. A further instance of the construction occurs in v. 75: candida succintam latrantibus inguina monstris, in the story of Scylla (vv. 74 – 7). Here there is a conflation of two stories, the story of the Megarian Scylla and the Scylla from the Odyssey, a mingling possibly to be attributed to Callimachus or Parthenius108. In any case, the story of Scylla, single or conflated, commonly appears in the neoteric register (Prop. 3.19.24 – 8, 4.4.39 – 40, Ov. Am. 3.12.21 – 2, see also Met. 8.6 – 151, Ciris). What is more, as Papanghelis 1995, 167 remarks, the polyptoton of the interrogative pronoun quis in vv. 79 ff. reminds the reader of the Callimachean Aetia. The syntax is associated with neoteric topics, techniques and catchwords also outside the neoteric sixth bucolic. Hyblaeis apibus florem depasta salicti occurs in 1.54, where the meta-poetic dimension of the Hyblean designation alluding to the Callimachean ckuj}r, lekiwq¹r needs no further elaboration109. The passage is full of terms / features alluding to the Callimachean – neoteric poetical program, such as, apart from the Hyblean honey, the parenthetic apposition in v. 57 (raucae, tua cura, palumbes), the fontis sacros (v. 52), and the imagery of the bees (v. 54). Callimachus’ poetry is like the clean and unblemished water that the bees bring to Demeter from a sacred spring, as is evident from the coda of the Hymn to Apollo, (vv. 110 – 2, especially v. 112: p_dajor 1n Req/r ak_cg kib±r %jqom %ytom), an important source of Callimachean poetics. Having established the neoteric colouring of the accusative syntax, one may be allowed to suggest that it brings Corydon, along with other hellenising constructions / stylistic options mentioned above, cf. pp. 74, 107 Cf. Coleman 1977, 195 – 6, Papanghelis 1995, 154 – 6. 108 Cf. Coleman 1977, 199, Papanghelis 1995, 167. 109 For a meta-poetic reading of the passage, cf. Berg 1974, 150 – 4, Papanghelis 1995, 187 – 91.

Conclusions

85

77, 79, 80 and n.93, 82; see also p. 77 and n.85, close to his final victory. A further stylistic option favoured in neoteric poetry110 occurs in v. 32, once again uttered by Corydon: the placement of the adjective in the first position of a line, whereas the substantive, to which the adjective refers, is put at the end of the verse111, puniceo stabis suras evincta coturno. A similar arrangement appears in Verg. Ecl. 2.1: formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin, imitating Theocr. 11.8, Call. Aet. 67.1 – 3 Pf. and Phanocles, =qyter C Jako_ fr. 1.1 – 2 Powell112. Whereas no such arrangement appears in Thyrsis’ lines, the neoteric layout occurs here in Corydon’s diction along with the also neoteric accusative syntax.

Conclusions The present chapter has examined the means by which Vergil manages to highlight Corydon’s superiority, which becomes evident on several levels. In opposition to Thyrsis, Corydon displays in his quatrains topics closely related to the pastoral world. Thyrsis, on the other hand, draws images that are not only somewhat incompatible with the pastoral landscape, but also have, within Roman poetry of the neoteric kind in general, negative associations; this is the case with winter imagery and the image of the wolf in threatening mood, both alien to Vergilian pastoral and associated in Roman neoteric poetry with the loss of the beloved, an ‘elegiac ideal’ par excellence. Furthermore, the deities called upon by Corydon, namely the Muses, Apollo and Bacchus, often have the function of a ‘Holy Trinity’ protecting the poetry of Callimachean – neoteric persuasion, and, what is more, in both Callimachus and his Roman followers, all three gods are seen as source of poetic inspiration. In opposition to Corydon, who refers to all three gods in his lyrics, Thyrsis mentions only Dionysus and his son, Priapus. A further dimension related to Corydon’s victory has to do with the presence of Daphnis as the contest’s umpire. Corydon, unlike Thyrsis, displays in his speech images that are closely asso110 Cf. Catul. 64.138: immite ut nostri vellet miserescere pectus. The arrangement is common in Lucretius too, 3.12, 948, 1085, etc. 111 For the neoteric character of the arrangement, cf. Conrad 1965, 225 – 9, Ross 1969, 132 – 4 and Clausen 1994, 64. 112 Cf. also Clausen 1994, 61. Similar to v. 32 seems to be the construction with the participle in v. 54: strata iacent passim sua quaeque sub arbore poma.

86

Corydon vs. Thyrsis in the Seventh Eclogue: Why Not a Draw?

ciated with the presentation of the deified Daphnis in the fifth eclogue (reference to the three gods again, i. e., the Muses, Apollo and Dionysus, the vine and the bull imagery), with whom the referee of the present bucolic up to a point seems to identify. Finally, on a linguistic / stylistic level, Corydon exhibits over again his neoteric sensibilities. He uses catchwords with a clear poetological background, such as dulcis, candidus, mollis, formosus, alluding to Callimachean – neoteric notions of poetry, whereas Thyrsis employs words that have negative associations within neoteric poetics, like longus, pinguis, vilis, invidia, interspersing, in addition, his language with reminiscences of Ennius’ epic poetry. Corydon, on the contrary, alludes to Lucretius, more widely accepted than Ennius in the Roman neoteric circles, and avoids words, current in his time, which have an epic colour (saetiger replaced by the colloquial saetosus, having the sanction of both Roman neoteric pastoral and elegy). Corydon’s neoteric style is also apparent on a syntactic level, as it is evident mainly from his use of the accusative + past participles syntagms, i. e., constructions flourishing, within the Vergilian Eclogues, in neoteric contexts. Thus Corydon establishes himself as a true representative of pastoral / neoteric ideals and poetic techniques, and this is the main cause of his final victory.

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue In his third eclogue, Vergil depicts one more poetic contest. An initial unfriendly altercation between two herdsmen, Damoetas and Menalcas, which includes accusations of theft and ‘unseemly’ sexual behaviour, and whose language and tone are reminiscent of the bickering between Comatas and Lacon and between Battus and Corydon in the fifth and fourth Theocritean idylls respectively, leads to a singing contest, where several of the typical topics of the bucolic singing match are to be found. These include rural piousness (vv. 60 – 3), ‘pastoral love’ with its pleasures and distress (vv. 64 – 83), and fear for the safety of the animals (vv. 92 – 103) 1, all expressed in well-structured – supposedly spur-of-the-moment – couplets. Palaemon2 is the umpire, who gives his verdict at the end of the poetic contest: the result is a draw; both contestants deserve, according to the referee, a prize; hence both singers are awarded a vitula, given that the original stake offered at the beginning of the poetic competition, the carved cups, had been withdrawn earlier. This verdict, an open-ended and ambiguous draw, has been read mainly in two opposite ways. Otis 1964, 143 and Segal 1967, 304, for example, have read Palaemon’s decision as the final reconciliatory step between the two poetic rivals, the last stage of a squaring off, operated and facilitated by the process of song-making, which resolves the initial mutual hostility of the squabbling lines. Others, on the other hand, such as Leach 1974, 180 – 2 and Boyle 1976, 194, see Palaemon’s ruling in just the opposite light, that is to say as an indication of an unresolved tension between Damoetas and Menalcas3. The present chapter aims to reexamine the poetic contest of the third eclogue and to propose an alternative account for the referee’s verdict. More specifically, it will be argued that Damoetas and Menalcas are not portrayed as typical representatives of the bucolic world and of the pastoral genre in 1 2 3

Cf. Coleman 1977, 128. For Palaemon as ‘unpastoral’ name, uncommon in bucolic poetry, and its presence, however, in Euphorion, cf. Schmidt 1972, 296 and n.294. Cf. Schultz 2003, 199.

88

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

particular: their language and the topics they choose to develop, although often not alien to the ‘realistic outlook’ of the pastoral world, have close connections with other literary genres, namely comedy, elegy and the mime4. Thus both competitors appear as representing only the realistic view of the bucolic world and not its true and real fundamental nature, i. e., the assimilation of the poetic values and trends of the pastoral genre. Hence both Damoetas and Menalcas are offered a vitula, symbolising the ‘pragmatic side’ of the pastoral, but not the cups representing the uppermost bucolic value, i. e., the ars of pastoral song5.

The Cups and the Ecphrasis The beech-wood cups are described in lines 35 ff., when, in response to Damoetas’ wager of a good milking cow, Menalcas offers them as a stake6, in lieu of a corresponding animal from his family’s herd, for he quails at the prospect of having to cope with his father’s and his stepmother’s sternness. These lines contain a well-developed ecphrasis, of the kind much favoured and elaborated by Hellenistic poets7. The embossed cups are the work of Alcimedon (v. 37: caelatum divini opus Alci4

5

6

7

The poetic contestants of the present eclogue have often been read as representing different poetic trends vs. Clausen 1994, 91 and Schultz 2003, 200 and n.6; Hubbard 1998, 68 sees Damoetas as a typical representative of the Theocritean world, whereas Menalcas as ‘deviating’ from such a tradition; Farrell 1992, 68 and n.8 sees Theocritus in Damoetas (the first singer), but views Menalcas (the singer who follows) as symbolising Vergil, whereas Dix 1995, 262 reads the poem as an conversation between Vergil and Gallus. The view adopted here is that both Menalcas and Damoetas represent one poetic line, in my view a kind of a ‘generic deviation’ from pastoral principles, as codified in pastoral works up to Vergil’s time. Cf. also Leach 1974, 175, Schultz 2003, 199. Segal 1967, 302 claims that the cups are merely forgotten, an unnecessary position. It will be demonstrated here that the withdrawal of the symbolic cups should be read as being motivated by reasons of ‘generic self-consciousness’. This is the common view in the bibliography on the third eclogue, as to the number of Menalcas’ cups. Vs. Henderson 1998, 220 and n.6 claiming that Menalcas does not spell out the number of the cups he owns, and Powell 1976, 115, who maintains that Menalcas is the owner of one cup only, on the basis of the syntagm caelatum…opus – v. 37, being in the singular and not in the plural. This view of Powell is refuted with some justification by Schultz 2003, 213 and n.32, who points out the use of the plural pocula in v. 36. Cf. Clausen 1994, 99 – 100.

The Cups and the Ecphrasis

89

medontis), crucially described as divine (divinus), i. e., by means of an adjective having obvious poetic connotations in the Eclogues, as it is often associated (cf. Ecl. 5.45, 6.67, 10.17) with poetic inspiration8. On their surface is depicted a pliable vine tangled with spreading clusters of fair ivy (vv. 38 – 9) and, in the middle of the cup, the figures of two famous astronomers, Conon, explicitly stated, and probably Eudoxus, whose name, however, Menalcas does not remember (v. 40: quis fuit alter (?)) and for whom it is claimed that, for man’s sake, he marked out with his rod the vault of heaven and the cycle of seasons (vv. 40 – 2). The vine-ivy depictions as well as the astronomer figures carry a special significance, when considered within Callimachean – neoteric poetics (cf. especially the pliant vine, lenta (v. 38), described by means of an adjective having particular poetological associations for Callimachean – neoteric poetic aspirations9). Ivy has often been associated not only with Bacchus, Apollo and poetic inspiration in general10 but also with poetic stimulation of the Callimachean kind in particular, as evidenced, for example, from Prop. 3.3.35, Hor. Carm. 1.1.29 and Verg. Ecl. 7.2511. Ivy, associated primarily with Bacchus, can also symbolise the lighter literary genres in opposition to the elevated poetic diction, which constitutes the par excellence enemy target of Callimachean – neoteric poetry. This is evident, for example, from Prop. 4.1a.61 – 2, where the epic poet Ennius hirsuta cingat sua dicta corona, whereas it is the elegiac and neoteric Propertius who asks Bacchus to give him leaves from his ivy: mi folia ex hedera porrige, Bacche, tua 12. In a similar vein, in Prop. 4.6.3, a poem celebrating the victory at Actium, a further piece of programmatic character, the ivy berries are associated with Philetas (Philiteis…corymbis), the well-known Hellenistic poet who influenced the neoteric movement in Rome immensely13. Finally, ivy has the poetological sanction of Callimachus himself, who refers to

8 Cf. Schmidt 1972, 295, Boyle 1986, 26 – 7 and n.32, 28, Faber 2000, 375 – 6. 9 Of particular importance is the expression lentus in umbra – Verg. Ecl. 1.4, implying the pastoral otium as the prerequisite of musical composition, i. e., the quintessence of the ‘bucolic ideal’. See also E.B. 21 and Theocr. 7.88 – 9. Cf. also Coleman 1977, 72 – 3. 10 Cf. Faber 2000, 376. 11 Cf. Coleman 1977, 114, Monteleone 1994, 25 – 6. 12 Cf. Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 13. 13 Cf. Cairns 1984, 97 – 8.

90

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

ivy in conjunction with Dionysus and the poetological motif of the ‘pure course’ in his epigrams, cf. 7.1 f. Pf.14. Emphasis is also given to the way the cups are made, and more specifically to the woodwork, although the term caelatum used as an attribute of the cups in v. 37 normally applies to metalwork15 : a lithe vine (v. 38: lenta vitis), added by a skilful wood carver’s chisel16 (v. 38: torno facili superaddita), clothes berry bunches strewed on a yellowish ivy (v. 39: diffusos hedera vestit pallente corymbos). This detailed description of the wood / metal working has further implications, if one takes into account the well-known tendency of Hellenistic and Roman neoteric poetry to use wood / metal working imagery as a metaphor for the p|mor / labour of the well-turned poetical product17. This account is given by means of a difficult and ambiguous syntactical construction (hedera pallente should be regarded as a locative ablative with diffusos or an ablative of means with vestit ?) worthy of the hellenising learning of a neoteric eclogue. The references to the astronomers have a further noteworthy significance, especially when one also bears in mind, as remarked in the previous chapter, cf. p. 72, the eminence of didactic poetry in relation to neoteric poetics. Conon is the third century astronomer who is credited with the naming of the Coma Berenices constellation, for which a patently neoteric poet, Catullus, wrote the 66th elegy of the Catullan corpus (cf. vv. 7 – 8, where the lock of Berenice’s hair identifies its discoverer: idem me ille Conon caelesti in lumine vidit / e Beroniceo vertice caesariem), translating Callimachus’ model poem (Aetia 4) on the missing lock of Queen Berenice, cf. fr. 110 Pf.18 ; in other words, the ecphrasis is 14 Cf. Cairns 1984, 97. 15 Cf. Clausen 1994, 100, Maurach 2008, 237 and n.41, Faber 1995, 411 – 7, who claims that Vergil mingles wood and metal qualifiers on purpose, in order to suggest an interaction between epic and pastoral. Vs. Saunders 2008, 13, who reads the present use of caelatum as a clumsiness emphasising Menalcas’ ‘ridiculous’ presence at this point of the pastoral narrative. 16 For the literary and meta-poetic connotations of tornus / t|qmor, cf. Faber 2000, 375 – 9. Faber (op. cit. especially p. 378) convincingly reads the cups as metapoetically suggesting ‘the refined style of the humble pastoral genre’. 17 Cf. Cairns 1984, 99, Monteleone 1994, 26. 18 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 114, Clausen 1994, 102, Monteleone 1994, 26, Faber 2000, 378 – 9, Saunders 2008, 10. Hubbard 1998, 72 sees here (vv. 40 – 1), along with a further Catullan allusion in v. 16 = Catul. 66.47 (see also Wills 1998, 292 and n.29, Saunders 2008, 16), a Vergilian ‘desire to transcend mere Theocritean imitation and the world of bucolic enclosure into a broader horizon of generic reference’; cf. also p. 75. Hubbard again 1998, 75 and n.58

The Cups and the Ecphrasis

91

about a mathematician-astronomer whose scientific discoveries have also been the subject of both Callimachean and Roman neoteric poetry19. As for the second astronomical figure, whose name is not mentioned due to Menalcas’ lapse of memory, it is in all probability, as previously suggested, Eudoxus, who wrote the Phaenomena later versified by Aratus, a didactic poem praised by Callimachus himself on poetological grounds (Ep. 27 Pf.) 20, translated into Latin by the young Cicero and often exploited by Vergil himself in the astronomical parts of his (also neoteric) didactic poem, the Georgics21. Damoetas strikes back with his own two cups, also made by the same Alcimedon (v. 44: et nobis idem Alcimedon duo pocula fecit). Their handles are decorated with pliant acanthus (v. 45: molli circum est ansas amplexus acantho), while in the middle of the cup there is a depiction of Orpheus followed by the woods (v. 46: Orpheaque in medio posuit silvasque sequentis), as an indication of his poetic authority. Both acanthus mollis and Orpheus’ figure have their own implications, considered again within Callimachean – neoteric poetics. Although acanthus mollis is the standard name for the cultivated variety of the wild acanthus spinosus, the adjective mollis has, as discussed in detail in the previous chapter22, cf. pp. 77 – 8, strong neoteric poetological connotations (cf. e. g. Prop. 2.1.2, Ov. Trist. 2.349). It seems, thus, to have a special poetological value as a means of decorating a cup which may be read as symbolising pastoral neoteric poetry and its values, in imitation of the rcq¹r

19 20 21

22

points out a further Catullan influence in v. 111, probably modeled on Catul. 61.224 – 5. All these allusions seem to anticipate the ‘generic transcendence’ of Verg. Ecl. 4 and 5 to follow. Cf. Schmidt 1972, 295. For the importance of Aratus’ poetry in the neoteric movement, cf. also Schmidt 1972, 295. The Verona scholiast gives seven names (cf. Clausen 1994, 102), among which Conon’s friend, Archimedes, suggested by Segal 1967, 298, Wormell 1960, 32 and n.2, is umetrical. For Eudoxus as the more likely second figure on Menalcas’ cups, introduced by a periphrasis used by Callimachus to present Conon (cf. fr. 110.1. Pf.; see also Cassio 1973, 329 – 31, La Penna 1981, 142), cf. Coleman 1977, 114 – 5, Putnam 1965, 154. For Eratosthenes, see Brown 1963, 88 – 92, Monteleone 1994, 26, 38 – 40, whereas for Aratus, cf. Schmidt 1972, 294 – 5, Ross 1975, 23 – 4, Fisher 1982, 803 – 14, Springer 1983, 131 – 4, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 91, O’ Hara 1996, 247, Schäfer 2001, 92 – 3, Tracy 2003, 72, Saunders 2008, 18 – 9. For Nigidius Figulus as the cryptic figure here, cf. especially Mayer 1974, 397 – 411. The Greek equivalent is lakaj|r, also suggesting the refinement of Mimnermus’ pentameter, cf. Fedeli 1980, 198.

92

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

%jamhor in the first Theocritean idyll (v. 55), where the adjective is also likely to symbolise the poetic ‘smoothness’ of the Hellenistic poetry as opposed to the ‘roughness’ of the homericising epic23. Orpheus, on the other hand, whose figure appears on the cups, is the archetypical poet, ‘the pastoral poet par excellence’ (in Segal’s words 1967, 290; cf. also n.17)24 within the eclogues, to whom both mythological and cosmological lines, so much favoured within neoteric poetical production25, are also ascribed26. Although in Theocritus’ first idyll there is no reference to the center of the cup, as in the present poem, which follows the model of the postHomeric ecphrasis27, it has long been perceived that Vergil’s model for the ecphrasis of the cups in the third eclogue is Theocritus’ jiss}biom in Id. 128, which, in its turn, is modeled upon the Homeric ecphrasis of Achilles’ shield, as well as the ecphrasis on Hercules’ shield of the pseudohesiodic Scut. 139 – 32029. And just as the jiss}biom of Theocritus functions as the symbol of poetry of the Callimachean strand, as evidenced by the accumulation of poetological symbolisms, sanctioned by Callimachean poetics, such as the sweetness imagery / jargon, the poetical springs, the water symbolisms, etc.30, Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ cups have a similar function, as shown by the poetological symbols they depict, as elaborated above, pp. 88 ff. Similarly, for both the Theocritean cup of the first idyll and the Vergilian cups of the third eclogue, it is emphatically stressed that they have never been touched by human lips, but have been kept, instead, in safe storage, cf. v. 43: necdum illis labra admovi, sed condita servo by Menalcas, a line identically and emphatically repeated by Damoetas in v. 47. In the 23 Cf. Cairns 1984, 100 – 1; see also Segal 1967, 289. 24 Cf. also Klinger 1967, 53, Berg 1974, 14, Coleman 1977, 115, Monteleone 1994, 27, Faber 2000, 376, Tracy 2003, 72. 25 For the neoteric penchant for mythological and cosmological lines, cf. especially Papanghelis 1995, 144 – 5. 26 Cf. also Farrell 1991, 287 and n.38. 27 Cf. Thomas 1983, 178, who points out that in Vergil one can discern a further development in the post-Homeric ecphrasis, since the ‘medial reference’ is found in the center of the relevant part of the eclogue; see also Saunders 2008, 15, 27. 28 Cf. also Gallavotti 1966, 433 – 6, Segal 1967, 282 – 6, Coleman 1975a, 141 – 2, La Penna 1981, 140, Hubbard 1998, 71 – 2, Faber 2000, 375, Loupiac 2003, 130 – 5. 29 Cf. Faber 1995, 412. 30 Cf. Cairns 1984, 95 – 105; see also Halperin 1983, 169 – 76.

The Cups and the Ecphrasis

93

first idyll the unnamed goatherd, who offers Thyrsis the jiss}biom (along with a goat for milking), as an exchange for the song on Daphnis’ sufferings, stresses the cup’s ‘pureness’, when also claiming that he never drunk from it (vv. 28, 59 – 6031), suggesting, in a poetological context, the key-notion of purity and originality in the Callimachean poetological theory32, just as it seems to be the case with the Vergilian lines as well. These cups, endowed as they are with the symbolic value of the bucolic / neoteric poetical register33 and praised rather for their value as artifacts than for their everyday utility as domestic gear34, are considered by the Vergilian contestants as less valuable than a cow, and, thus, cease to function as the poetic prize of this specific song-contest quite early. This attitude of the contestants contrasts sharply with that of the unnamed goatherd of the first idyll, who appreciates and reaffirms the value of the cup / poetic symbol, and for which it is clearly stated that he paid a sailor from Calydnos a goat and a large cheese of white milk (vv. 57 – 8) 35. This goatherd, in opposition to Damoetas and Menalcas, did not hesitate to deprive himself of emblems of the realistic aspect of idyllic life for the sake of the pastoral good par excellence, i. e., poetry. A pipe is proposed by Menalcas as the prize of the song-contest in place of an animal, a proposal accepted by Daphnis, although he already has one, [Theocr.] 8.13 – 24. Daphnis and Menalcas of the eighth pseudotheocritean idyll36 are tempted by the realistic prizes of the calf and the lamb but opt, in the end, for the poetic symbol of the panpipe, even though Daphnis has one of his own. Their Vergilian deviant counterparts, on the contrary, vacillate in a similar manner between the ‘realistic’ cow and the ‘symbolic’ cups37, but, unlike their pseudotheoc31 Cf. also Faber 2000, 376 and n.6, Saunders 2008, 17. 32 Cf. also Cairns 1984, 99. 33 For the cups of the third eclogue in particular as symbols of pastoral poetry, cf. Breed 2006, 58 – 9, 63 – 4; see also Segal 1967, 287 – 92, Putnam 1970, 124 – 6. 34 Cf. Schäfer 2001, 93. 35 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 76. 36 For a possible influence of [Theocr.] 8.11 – 24 concerning the separation of the gifts here in Verg. Ecl. 3, cf. Jachmann 1922, 104 – 5, Hubbard 1998, 71 – 2 and n.46; see also Saunders 2008, 11 – 2. For Theocr. 5.104 – 7 as a further possible model, cf. Cartault 1897, 131 – 4. 37 Segal 1967, 282 – 6 similarly sees here a distinction between ‘rustic’ and ‘poetic’. For an opposition, on the other hand, between the vitula, symbolising bucolic poetry, and the cups as ‘emblems of cosmological composition’, cf. Saunders 2008, 20 – 1.

94

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

ritean predecessors, are at cross-purposes and finally choose the first, the ‘realistic’ equivalent. This rather ‘aberrant’ attitude, when considered in pastoral ‘generic terms’, i. e., vis-à-vis the earlier pastoral tradition, is further emphasised by Menalcas’ loss of memory, when he forgets the second astronomer’s figure on the cups, thus showing himself unable to remember the symbolisms of a cup-poetic symbol. One should also draw attention here to a similar memory lapse experienced by Lycidas, one of the main pastoral figures in the ninth Vergilian eclogue, also as a side-effect of a ‘generic deviation’ from the ‘pastoral purity’ of the past, which is lost due to history’s intrusion into the literary landscape of the earlier Greek bucolic tradition (see chapter 5, p. 201 in particular). Defective memory thus seems to function within Vergilian pastoral as a marker of ‘generic alteration / novelty’. A metrical feature adds to this ‘unharmonious’ presentation of the symbolic cups in relation to the two song contestants. In v. 37, when claiming that his wager is the work of the divine Alcimedon, following thus the Hellenistic ecphrasis habit of mentioning the name of the craftsman38, Menalcas commits the ‘fault’ of a rough elision in divini opus, not found elsewhere in the Eclogues 39. He thus presents the divine work of a divine craftsman through a less divine metrical form. The same metrical harshness is also suggested, as Soubiran 1966, 412 claims (au début du vers: double infraction, dans un dialogue d’ allure rustique et familière), in v. 48, in the collocation si ad of the phrase si ad vitula spectas, nihil est, quod pocula laudes, by means of which Damoetas restores a vitula as the stake of this particular poetic contest instead of the cups40. Thus, at the very moment when the herdsmen choose the ‘realistic’ prize over the ‘symbolic’ cup, which stands for pastoral poetic values, Damoetas stylistically marks such a decision with a double elision at the beginning of the line, i. e., by means of an unrefined metrical feature, suitable for pastoral figures rejecting a poetic symbol in favour of a materialistic good. Thus, this elision should not be seen as simply reflecting, as Soubiran suggests, the colloquial colour of rustic diction, but as having a further particular symbolic weight, since such ‘artless’ features are not at all common in the speech of Vergil’s rustic herdsmen.

38 Cf. Faber 1995, 415 and n.14. 39 Cf. Clausen 1994, 100. 40 For the view that it is only Damoetas’ heifer that ever functioned really at stake, see Veremans 1969, 18, Powell 1976, 115.

The Bickering Scene

95

As a further metrical idiosyncrasy, note that Menalcas’ numquam hodie effugies; veniam, quocumque vocaris (v. 49), which confirms a vitula as the prize, is not only formulated by means of a distinctly colloquial syntagm (a collocation consisting of numquam…effugies with the hodie, a regular comic feature41), but is also articulated in a metrical form that starts as a senarius, that is the metre par excellence of comic dialogues. Thus, within the metrical form of the bucolic genre, the dactylic hexameter, a reader could also ‘overhear’, in Clausen’s words 1994, 104, the start of a senarius, in other words the beginning of a metrical form mostly associated with another poetic genre, Roman drama and comedy in particular. This remark acquires additional weight, when considered within the general linguistic / stylistic and thematic rapprochement of the present bucolic poem to the comic genre (see in detail the next sub-chapter, pp. 98 ff.).

The Bickering Scene The opening scene of the eclogue is a verbal fight between the herdsmen Menalcas and Damoetas. Menalcas accuses Damoetas of stealing his master’s fortune by overmilking Aegon’s flock (vv. 3 – 6). Damoetas rounds on Menalcas by bringing forward the latter’s alleged passive homosexual preferences, described in a negative light (vv. 7 – 9), allegations that lead, in their turn, to Menalcas’ accusing, with an ironical twist, Damoetas of destroying Micon’s trees and vine shoots (vv. 10 – 11). Damoetas retorts with a further accusation: Menalcas, out of spite, broke Daphnis’ bow and arrows (vv. 12 – 5), an allegation prompting Menalcas’ counter-charge: Damoetas stole Damon’s goat (vv. 17 – 8), which, however, according to Damoetas not taking this offence lying down, was won by him in a poetic contest with Damon, who later refused to surrender it to the winner Damoetas (vv. 21 – 4), a statement 41 Cf. also Monteleone 1994, 27. Such usage of hodie in negative statements is found only once in Naev. trag. 13 and several times in comedy only to reappear in Vergil here. A further instance occurs also in A. 2.670, yet in a passage where a further linguistic influence of the colloquial diction of Roman comedy has long been observed (cf. Austin 1964, 252 and, for further Plautine linguistic features, see also 243, 244, 250 – 1), but nowhere else in Roman literature, cf. also ThLL VI 3, 2851, 14 ff. (a). Colum. fr. 3 is dubious. La Penna 1981, 143 – 4 however sees here a ‘tono paratragico’, a ‘parodia dell’ epica’; see also Van Sickle 1986, 82.

96

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

doubted by Menalcas (vv. 25 – 7). The opening of the eclogue is clearly modeled after Theocritus’ fourth idyll42, where Battus teases Corydon, when he asks his interlocutor whether or not the latter secretly milks his master’s, Aegon’s cows (vv. 2 – 3). However, whereas in the Theocritean model Battus’ remark is simply tongue in cheek, a remark that should be viewed in terms of lighthearted gossipy conversation, an amicable discourse, the same does not hold true for Menalcas’ allegations in the third eclogue43. Menalcas is certain of Damoetas’ theft, an attitude that brings both Vergilian herdsmen closer to Comatas and Lacon of the fifth idyll, where the two rustic figures accuse each other of stealing a goatskin and a pipe (vv. 1 – 7). This movement towards the fifth idyll is further reinforced by Damoetas’ allegations concerning Menalcas’ ‘unseemly’ sexual orientation, i. e., his taking a ‘female’ part in homosexual intercourse44 Yet it is generally accepted that one of the basic traits of the Arcadian community is bisexualism, and, in fact, to such an extent of becoming a crucial marker of its ‘generic identity’. In other words, it is understood that a resident of Arcadia may and does enjoy sexual intercourse with both sexes, and it is often the case that a herdsman expresses his feelings for or boasts of his successes with both men and women, cf. Thyrsis’ reference to both a she – Phyllis and a he – Lycidas in the seventh Vergilian eclogue (vv. 59, 67). The same also applies to instances of pastoral homosexuality, which is by no means negatively depicted; thus in the Theocritean corpus one can find several instances of homosexual love: in the fourth idyll, for example, Corydon is in charge of Aegon’s flock, because the latter followed probably his lover, the athlete Milon, to the Olympic games, whereas in the programmatic seventh idyll, Thalysia, the archetypical pastoral / poetic figure, Lycidas, sings a propemptikon for his beloved, Ageanax, when his foil, the urban Simichidas, sings the love of his friend’s, Aratus, for a boy, Philinos45. In a similar vein, Bion 42 Cf. also Klinger 1967, 50, Coleman 1975a, 141, Effe – Binder 1989, 73, Monteleone 1994, 22, Hubbard 1998, 69, Tracy 2003, 68 – 9, Karanika 2006, 107, Saunders 2008, 14 – 5. Karanika 2006, 107 – 14 interestingly ‘contextualises’ the agonistic aspect of the eclogue in the Mediterranean / Cretan cultural ethics. 43 Cf. Monteleone 1994, 22: ‘l’ accusa di Batto a Coridone è più moderata’, Schultz 2003, 203. See also Hunter 1999, 132 vs. Gutzwiller 1991, 148. 44 Cf. also Segal 1967, 281, Effe – Binder 1989, 73 – 4, Hubbard 1998, 70. 45 Further instances of homosexual love in the Theocritean corpus include: in the twelfth idyll one reads of the poet’s love for a boy with reference to the homosexual hero, Diocles from Megara, the thirteenth idyll has as its topic Hercules’

The Bickering Scene

97

fr. 12, recounts homosexual love affairs famous in myth, concerning the following male pairs: Theseus and Pirithous, Orestes and Pylades, Achilles and Patroclus46. In the fifth idyll, however (vv. 35 – 43), similarly to the third eclogue, Comatas mentions his former love affair with Lacon, and, what is more, his ‘active’ sexual role in opposition to Lacon’s ‘passive’ sexual function, an alleged sexual experience repeated in vv. 116 – 7 as well. There is, however, an important difference between Comatas’ claims and the sexually oriented accusations of the third eclogue: although both Lacon’s and Menalcas’ homosexual intercourse led to the sexual stimulation of the goats watching the scene (v. 8 of the eclogue, vv. 41 – 2 of the idyll), Lacon’s functioning as a ‘bottom’, contrasted with Comatas’ being a ‘top’, does not explicitly make him less of a man, whereas Menalcas is a ‘bottom’ and as a consequence not a man. Damoetas says so quite clearly: v. 7: parcius ista viris tamen obicienda memento 47. Although issues of sexual domination are clearly involved in Comatas’ and Lacon’s case, Comatas does not accuse his ex-lover so much on the basis of his passive sexual habits, but more importantly because of the latter’s disrespectful attitude towards an older member of the pastoral community, who had once functioned as his music teacher (vv. 35 – 8). Thus the bond between Comatas and Lacon is the equivalent of that between a pedagogue and a boy48, as two basic prerequisites of this type of liaison occur in the relationship in question, namely age difference and a teaching link. This liaison has been considered (Pretagostini 1984, 138 and n.10) as similar to that of Hercules and Hylas in the thirteenth Theocritean idyll. Connotations of this kind are not detectable in the case of Menalcas, who is accused of being less of a man on the basis of his passive homosexual behaviour49. This attitude, therefore, seems to be uncharacteristic of the pastoral genre, up to Vergil at least.

46 47 48 49

love for Hylas, Id. 23 relates the suicide of a homosexual lover, and finally Id. 29 and 30 are about the poet and his beloved boy, cf. especially Effe 1992, 55 – 67. This is also the case with Vergil’s Eclogues, where Corydon’s homoerotic love for Alexis, Iollas’ darling, in the second eclogue enjoys an eminent position. See also Verg. Ecl. 10.37 – 41. Cf. also Reed 1997, 162, 175 – 6. Cf. also Monteleone 1994, 23: ‘viris:…con enfasi’. Cf. Pretagostini 1984, 137 – 41, especially 138. Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 70, who points out Menalcas’ sexual passivity in terms of grammar and syntax, – v. 8 novimus et qui te, transversa tuentibus hircis, as well:

98

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

The allegation of passive homosexuality, disconnected from the typology of paidij± as in the case of the fifth idyll, seems to ‘go beyond’ pastoral as genre and is reminiscent of stand-up comic situations of Roman comedy. Although a negative attitude towards the ‘female sexual subjugation’ of a homosexual man in the passive role is common in the whole of the ancient bisexual literature50, this particular situation of the two squabbling slaves51 and, especially, the motif of sexual abuse of a slave (forced) into a ‘submissive’ sexual role has its many parallels in comedy, and in Roman comedy in particular. It has been noted (Williams 1999, 35) that one of Plautus’ main Roman innovations and deviations from his Greek original is his penchant for using abusive jokes on ‘bottom’ homosexual behaviour of slaves, outside the relationship between 1qastµr and 1q~lemor. Examples include Pseudolus 1180 – 1, where a slave, Harpax, the servant of the soldier Polymachaeroplagides, is blamed by a pimp (Ballio), i. e., another character of a lower social status, for letting the soldier stick his ‘sword’ in his ‘sheath’ (v. 1181: conveniebatne in vaginam tuam machaera militis?). A similar situation appears in Rudens 1073 – 5, where one slave says to another that his master, unlike the latter’s, does not sexually exploit his slaves, in Epidicus 66, where a slave ironically informs another that their master loves his captive girl more that he ever ‘loved’ him (plusque amat quam te umquam amavit) and in Mostellaria 890 ff., where the slave Pinacium accounts for another slave’ s arrogance as being due to the fact that he is his master’s ‘mattress’ (culcitulam), all of these claims offensively suggesting ‘bottom’ homosexuality52. The whole passage is thus reminiscent of squabbling scenes between two Roman comedy slaves and, what is more, appears to be accentuating the Roman colouring of the eclogue, for ‘isomorphism’ between sexual penetration and the concept of manhood is much stronger within a Roman context. Note again the use of ‘the language of virility’, v. 7: parcius ista viris tamen obicienda memento, for vir, as a terminus technicus denoting the ‘impenetrability’ of a man, reflects a Roman rather than a ‘note the masculine relative qui and Menalcas’ grammatical status as a direct object, passively acted on’. For tranversa tuentibus in the sense of ‘peeping out of the corner of the eye’ or ‘looking askance’, cf. Coleman 1977, 111, Hendry 1995, 51 – 2 further claiming that there is no need to choose between literal and figurative meanings (see also A.P. 9.745). 50 Cf. Coleman 1977, 110. 51 Cf. Clausen 1994, 93. 52 Cf. Williams 1999, 34 ff., especially 34 – 7.

The Bickering Scene

99

Greek notion. Nonetheless the term vir in the above sense applies to a free-born Roman man of a certain civil rank53, whereas both figures of the present eclogue have, as already remarked, p. 98, the status of slaves. This would further increase the comic character of the poem, bringing it closer to well-established practices of Roman New Comedy for the most part, where humor largely results from an inversion of a slave’s status on the comic stage as opposed to real life, from his central presence on the Roman-Plautine comic scene, and from his appropriation of the manners and habits of free Romans54. This ‘comic / dramatic outlook’ of the eclogue, as evidenced not only on the level of the comic motifs and topics but also in terms of linguistic and stylistic assimilation, may constitute an indication for a possible staging of the present eclogue, an idea often put forward in the relevant bibliography of the eclogues55. As for the accusation of theft itself, although one of Vergil’s models for the present eclogue must have been the fifth idyll, where a similar fight between a goatherd and a shepherd accusing each other of pilfering occurs, the allegations of the third eclogue do not allude directly to the fifth idyll. Lacon, in the fifth idyll, accuses Comatas of stealing his pipe (v. 4), whereas two lines earlier (v. 2) he was charged by Comatas with stealing the latter’s goatskin. The goatskin and the pipe, however, are goods closely associated with typical pastoral values, i. e., singing and song-making on a goatskin or sheepskin (cf. Theocr. 5.50 ff.), in otio, in the shade of the idyllic locus amoenus of the pastoral landscape. In other words, both Comatas and Lacon strive after tokens symbolising pastoral ideals and confirm, even by means of their alleged stealing, their adherence to the basic principles of the literary genre they belong to. As previously suggested for the fourth Theocritean idyll, cf. p. 96, Battus’ allegations concerning Corydon’s secretly milking Aegon’s cows should be read as playful, whereas Menalcas’ accusations against Damoetas for milking Aegon’s ewes are uttered in a serious tone, as is also the later accusation of Menalcas concerning Damoetas’ stealing of Damon’s goat (vv. 16 – 20). In this way, Damoetas is presented as driven by materialist values and motivated by a desire for profit, i. e., by ideals alien to the pastoral world, where poetry is ranked first, far higher than 53 Cf. especially Walters 1997, 29 – 43. 54 Cf. especially Duckworth 1952, 318 – 9. 55 Cf. Steinmetz 1968, 115 – 25, Highet 1974, 24 – 5, Coleiro 1979, 66 – 70, Horsfall 1995, 17.

100

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

money-oriented values (for this point see in more detail chapter 7, cf. pp. 250 – 1). This is clearly implied, in the case of the third eclogue, by the theft of goods not directly connected with poetry56. Hence, Damoetas is crucially described as alienus…custos (v. 5), not only literally in the sense of ‘a hired keeper’ but also, viewed with a certain ‘generic self-consciousness’, as somehow alien to a traditional pastoral world and its values. In comedy, on the other hand, parallels of bickering scenes among two slaves are to be found, full of allegations of stealing or squandering their master’s fortune. This is the case for example with the introductory scene of Plautus’ Mostellaria, a play which Vergil seems to have imitated in his Aeneid57 as well, where the slave Grumio blames Tranio, the servus callidus of the play, for wasting the master’s wealth58, etc. What is more, the situation facilitating Damoetas’ alleged theft, namely a master in love59 apprehensive of a real or a potential erotic rival (vv. 4 – 5), is at the heart of both comedy and elegy but not of pastoral tradition. The comic adulescens in love frequently has to cope with a wealthier competitor, more often than not a soldier (e. g. Argyrippus against Diabolus in Asinaria, Phaedromus against his rival miles in Curculio, Pleusicles against Pyrgopolynices in Miles Gloriosus, Phaedria against Thraso in Eunuchus), or other stock figures, such as the senex lepidus in love (e. g. Charinus against his own father, Demipho, both being in love with Pasicompsa in Mercator, Demaenetus pleading with his son Argyrippus to be allowed, as his reward for having helped with the latter’s 56 A similar ‘deviation’, towards the comic genre, has already been noted in the case of the first eclogue as well. Tityrus’ interest in securing a peculium for his manumission as well as the figure of an oppressing and spendthrift wife are alien to the pastoral world and more appropriate for the ‘generic realm’ of comedy, cf. also Coleman 1977, 78 – 9, Papanghelis 1995, 193 – 4, chapter 3, cf. pp. 134 – 5. 57 Cf. Currie 1976, 412. 58 For coarse language between slaves in bickering scenes, see also Plaut. Asin. 297 ff., Cas. 89 ff. In total, there are fifteen such altercation scenes between slaves or a slave and a leno in the extant plays of Plautus, cf. also Currie 1976, 412. 59 Significantly enough, in the Theocritean model Aegon is only presented as leaving with Milon for the Olympic games; in Vergil, on the other hand, it is precisely eros, erotic rivalry, that makes him neglect his animals; see also Klinger 1967, 50, Monteleone 1994, 22. Hence the emphasis on the destructive power of eros here could be seen as a marker of ‘generic deviation / alteration’, as elaborated below, pp. 102 – 4.

The Bickering Scene

101

love-affair, to enjoy himself the favours of his son’s beloved, Philaenium, in Asinaria, Lysidamus vs. his son, Euthynicus, both in love with Casina, in the comedy with the same name). In elegy as well, fear of and envy for an erotic rival becomes a basic structural element, as is evident from several instances in the elegiac corpus, e. g. the dives amator of the fifth elegy of Tibullus’ first book (vv. 47 – 58), introduced to the poet’s beloved, Delia, by a lena, the ‘nouveau riche’ freedman who snatches Nemesis away from Tibullus in the third elegy of the second book, the man with whom Lygdamus’ Neaera is in love and who is the cause of her denying the poet’s marriage proposal, as disclosed to Lygdamus by the god Apollo in the fourth elegy of [Tib.] 3. See also Propertius’ 1.8a, which refers to a rival who managed to alienate the poet from his beloved Cynthia, 2.9a, where Propertius reveals his jealousy of the praetor of Illyricum, enjoying at that moment Cynthia’s embraces, and curses his rival in love60, Ovid’s Am. 1.4, where Ovid has to face his darling’s lover in a banquet, 2.2, where Ovid tries to persuade the eunuch, Bagoas, his beloved’s chaperon, to help him against the lady’s husband (who is also the poet’s rival in love) 61, etc. Unreciprocated love is one of the main topics of the Theocritean bucolic world and the source of sorrow for several characters of the Theocritean universe: see e. g. the goatherd of the third idyll vainly trying to entice his beloved, Amaryllis, by means of his song, Polyphemus of the eleventh idyll, infatuated with the unyielding Galatea, Aratus, Simichidas’ friend, burning for the love of Philinos, who seems to be indifferent to the latter’s feelings, Bion fr. 16, where Galatea is also described as !pgm]a (v. 3), denoting the inflexible lover62. Yet all these instances of unrequited love are not due to a particular and specific rival, 60 Cf. also 2.16, when the praetor, mentioned above, returns to Rome, 2.34, an elegy directed against a further erotic contender, Lynceus, 3.8b, where the poet’s unnamed erotic competitor is cursed to be ‘father-in-lawed’ [v. 38, translation by Lee 1994, 82] for life, 3.20a, when the poet expresses his doubt as to whether his rival, having already deserted Cynthia, would still remember her looks, 4.8, where, on the occasion of a festivity in Lanuvium, Propertius comes across Cynthia, escorted by a toy-boy now having the role of the erotic opponent. 61 Cf. also 2.5, where the poet describes his anger over his beloved’s exchanging secret signs and kisses with another man, 2.19, where the typical rivalry, poet lover vs. husband, occurs, although not in its conventional form, cf. also 3.4. 62 Cf. also Reed 1997, 191. See also [Theocr.] 23.1, 48.

102

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

with the exception of Aeschinas’ love, in the fourteenth idyll, for Cynisca, who, at her turn, is in love with another man, Lycos. However, the fourteenth idyll does not deal with pastoral life; it is a non-bucolic mime, clearly drawing on the comic genre63. Besides, even in Theocritus, but also in Bion, Moschus and Meleager as well as the Hellenistic epigram in general, there is a clear contrast between love with its miseries (and / or love-poetry) on the one hand and ideal pastoral life, alien to the wretchedness of love (and / or bucolic poetry) on the other, ‘between the bucolic and the erotic’, cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 178, although eros with its consequences often intrudes into the bucolic community, destroying the ‘pastoral ideal’ of a sought-after "suw_a (a common motif in pastoral) and distracting the pastoral characters from their regular tasks (cf. in more detail introduction and chapter 4, pp. 19, 25, 31 – 2, 167 in particular)64. This contrast also dominates the Roman poetry of the period and is evident in Vergil’s eclogues as well, where, in addition, erotic troubles are often seen as a ‘deviant generic movement’ towards the elegiac world or as arising from urban elegiac passion65. The clearest illustration occurs in the tenth eclogue, where, as already pointed out, cf. pp. 34 – 5, the father of Roman elegy, Cornelius Gallus, attempts to compensate for his ‘broken heart’ through an intrusion into the pastoral world and its poetry, i. e., bucolic poetry, abandoning the city and its poetic genre, elegy. Although at the end the elegiac poet succumbs to the life and the poetry of an elegiac lover (v. 69: omnia vincit Amor: et nos 63 Cf. Verity 2002, 103. Erotic rivalry, although not affecting any specific Theocritean bucolic character, appears in the ecphrasis of the unnamed herdsman’s jiss}biom too, in the first Theocritean idyll. The last scene, the image of the boy who, indifferent to the foxes looting his vines and lunch-bag, twists a cricket-cage has, for Coleman 1977, 114: ‘obvious links with pastoral’ (see also Alpers 1996, 148 – 9; for the ‘self-referential’, poetological implications of the scene, cf. Hunter 1999, 82; see also Cairns 1984, 102 – 5, Goldhill 1987, 1 – 6). The other two scenes, namely the fisherman and his net as well as the image of a woman and her suitors ‘take us’, as Coleman 1977, 114 plausibly claims (vs. Schmidt 1998 – 9, 237 – 8), ‘for a while outside the specifically pastoral context’. For a possible comic or pictorial influence on the suitors’ scene of the Theocritean ecphrasis, cf. also Hunter 1999, 62, 80. Mosch. fr. 2 is of a different kind: Pan, Echo and Satyr, although experiencing unrequited love for Echo, Satyr and Lyde respectively, do not think of their beloveds’ sweethearts as their personal erotic rivals. 64 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 14 – 5, 201. 65 Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 176 – 90.

The Bickering Scene

103

cedamus Amori), he wishes he had earlier adopted the pastoral way of life and engaged in a love-affair with an unspecified Phyllis or Amyntas, free from all the miseries of an elegiac love, cf. vv. 35 ff. Similarly, in the second eclogue, Corydon, wretched because of his hopeless love for the urban beauty Alexis, Iollas’ deliciae, realises his ‘deviant’ erotic behaviour at the end of the eclogue and reaffirms his belief in the values of pastoral life and poetry, admonishing himself to continue his unfinished pastoral tasks (a half-pruned vine, etc., cf. vv. 69 – 72) and find another Alexis, who will not scorn him (v. 73: invenies alium, si te hic fastidit, Alexin) 66. The same applies in the case of the unhappy love stories narrated in the songs of Damon and Alphesiboeus in the eighth eclogue. Nysa, in Damon’s song, abandons an unnamed goatherd because of her love for Mopsus, thus exhibiting an erotic behaviour more appropriate to the elegiac world. That this is an ‘aberrant conduct according to bucolic norms’ is evidenced, among other things, by her contempt of the herdsman’s goats (symbolising the realistic view of the pastoral world), his pipe (i. e., song, the pastoral value par excellence), and finally his rustic appearance (vv. 32 – 4) 67. Correspondingly, in Alphesiboeus’ lines, Amaryllis (if that is indeed her name), another pastoral figure, resorts to magic in order to regain her husband, Daphnis, from the clutches of a love-affair situated, significantly, in the city (urbs) – (a default case for the elegiac lover). The bucolic lady tries to bring her faithless lover back into the pastoral closed world, as emphatically underlined by the repeated incantation refrain (ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daphnin, cf. also chapter 3, pp. 144 ff.) 68. An equally ‘unpastoral’ erotic distress is discernible in the case of Aegon here, vv. 3 – 4, who in addition is in love with a Neaera, i. e., with a woman whose name is doubly significant: on the one hand, the name is regular for Nymphs in myth, but appears only once here in pastoral. On the other hand, Neaera has a clear elegiac history, often as a woman of easy morals, appearing in Parthenius’ Peq· 9qytij_m Pahgl\tym 18 as the woman who seduces the friend of her husband, in Lygdamus’ elegies as his beloved, in Ov. Am. 3.6.27 – 8 and in Hor. Epod. 15, as the saeva lady, who abandons her lover, Horace, de66 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 43 – 64 and 64 – 87. 67 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 89 – 90; see also Kenney 1983, 53 – 5, chapter 3, pp. 133 ff. 68 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 89.

104

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

spite her vows of eternal love for him69. Thus Aegon seems to be somehow ‘aberrant’, as far as previous bucolic tradition is concerned, not only because of his rather ‘elegiac anxiety’ over the love of a woman and his rival suitors, but also because this woman he is in love with, although named after the Nymphs of mythology (the Nymphs having in pastoral often the role of the inspiring deity70), has a distinct non-pastoral, but instead elegiac, ‘literary career’. ‘Unpastoral’ is also Menalcas’ alleged breaking of Daphnis’ bow and arrows. As Schultz 2003, 205 plausibly remarks, following Berg 1974, 121, who claims that ‘Daphnis was the pastoral poet and lover par excellence’, the damage of his hunting gear is equivalent to the ruin of the ‘tools’ of the very bucolic poetry. In other words, this crime is committed against a character bearing, not without purpose, the name of the archetypical herdsman. Although it is clear that the word calamos has here the meaning of ‘arrows’, since it is associated with arcum (bow), it is used elsewhere in the sense of ‘pipes’, cf. Ecl. 1.10, 2.3271. It may, therefore, be an intentional linguistic choice suggesting, on a first level, Daphnis’ hunting equipment, but, on a second level, implying Daphnis’ bucolic poetry. Moreover, this offense is perpetrated out of jealousy, a notion invested with explicit poetological implications in the Callimachean and neoteric poetological program, adopted by Vergil in his eclogues as well (as is evidenced, among other things, by the introductory lines of the sixth eclogue, echoing Callimachus’ prologue of the Aetia, see also introduction, pp. 32 – 4). The neoteric orientation of the third eclogue in particular is also clear: it is emphasised by the mention of Asinius Pollio (vv. 84 – 91), praised here for his neoteric leaning, in the words of Menalcas in v. 86: Pollio et ipse facit nova carmina, (novus most likely being here the well known catchword of the neoteric literary production), with reference, probably, to Pollio’s erotic nugae (cf. Plin. Epist. 5.3.5) 72. In addi69 Cf. Clausen 1994, 93. 70 For Nymphs as the Muses of the bucolic poetry, cf. especially Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 153 ff.; see also chapter 1, p. 69 and chapter 4, pp. 157 – 8. 71 Cf. Coleman 1977, 111, Saunders 2008, 20. 72 Papanghelis 1995, 111 – 3 claims that Pollio is praised not only for writing neoteric poetry but also for using neoteric techniques in poetry of the bucolic kind. Be that as it may, Pollio was a friend of Calvus, Cinna and Catullus, who also ascribes neoteric sensibilities to him in c.12.8 – 9: est enim leporum / differtus puer ac facetiarum; see also Papanghelis 1995, 111. For Pollio’s nova carmina suggesting neoteric poetry or in any case lighter poetic genres, cf. also La Penna 1981,

The Bickering Scene

105

tion, the unfavourable depiction of Maevius and Bavius, Pollio’s ‘literary opponents’, in a Telchinian light73, i. e., as literary enemies of the anti-Callimachean strand, further enhances the Callimachean – neoteric perspective of the poem. A further indication is furnished by the words of Palaemon, the umpire, describing a pastoral setting par excellence, suggesting bucolic splendor and calmness74 : in v. 55 (dicite, quandoquidem in molli consedimus herba) he gives the start for the singing match and sets not only the fundamental rule of a turn-taking performance (v. 59: alternis dicetis) 75 but also the ‘poetological rules’ of the contest, suggested by the adjective mollis, a marker of the Callimachean – neoteric poetry.

159 – 60, Néraudau 1983, 1733 – 43, Glei 1991, 86, Monteleone 1994, 33, 73 – 5 and n.43 vs. Buchheit 1984, 73 – 4, Nauta 2006, 317 and n.55; see also Grillo 1971, 78 – 84, Monella 2009, 70 and n.8. Veremans 1969, 45 ff. reads nova carmina, quite unconvincingly (cf. Papanghelis 1995, 324 – 5 and n.85), as poems dealing with Platonic, Stoic and Neopythagorean doctrines. Yet Pollio is by no means a poet exclusively devoted to the genus tenue. His endeavours in the genus grande (cf. also Hor. Carm. 2.1.9 – 12, Hor. Serm. 1.10.42 – 3 and perhaps Verg. Ecl. 8.10; see the relevant discussion in the next chapter, pp. 126 ff.) seem to account for the offering of the bull (vv. 86 – 7), a symbol of higher literary genres, troping along with vitula (v. 85), standing for pastoral (cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 90, Farrell 1991, 282 – 3, Monteleone 1994, 34, Nauta 2006, 317), on the sacrificial level, the poetological / ‘generic opposition’: genus grande vs. genus tenue. In my view, the genus grande symbolism of the bull does not counter nova carmina in the sense of ‘neoteric poetry’. Damoetas initially (vv. 84 – 5) praises Pollio as a reader (v. 85: lectori) of the slender pastoral Muse; Pollio is accordingly given the gift of the cow symbolising pastoral neoteric production. Menalcas responds by bringing forward Pollio’s neoteric poetic production (v. 86); however, he simultaneously acknowledges the latter’s excellence in the genus grande (tragedy) by offering him the bull. 73 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 113 – 4. The syntagm mulgeat hircos in v. 91, alluding to caprimulgus in Catullus’ 22.10, is perhaps of interest here. Catullus’ term refers to Suffenus, who has chosen, against Callimachean sensibilities, the poetry of many lines. The expressions seem, thus, to constitute kind of a literary jargon denoting anti-neoteric literary beliefs. For Bavius and Maevius as the ‘literary opponents’, cf. also Otis 1964, 128, Monteleone 1994, 34 – 5, 74, Schäfer 2001, 84. For an unconvincing political reading of the eclogue, cf. Savage 1958, 142 – 58 and a refutation by Schäfer 2001, 73. 74 Cf. Segal 1967, 292, Schäfer 2001, 95 – 6. 75 Cf. Van Sickle 1986, 83, Schäfer 2001, 77. For the fact that the umpire arrives, according to the bucolic consuetude, ex inproviso; cf. also Schäfer 2001, 76 and n.18, Wills 1993, 7.

106

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

This is the poetological criterion of the singing match and, as a consequence, whatever is not in tune with it is to be negatively marked76. Envy is a poetological defect suggesting, as remarked in the previous chapter, cf. p. 78, anti-Callimachean poetic trends, on the basis of both the Callimachean prologue of the Aetia, whereby Calimachus’ literary enemies, the Telchines, are described as b\sjamoi (v. 17), and the programmatic coda of the Hymn to Apollo, where Apollo kicks the personified Envy. Thus Menalcas is accused of wronging Daphnis, the archetypical pastoral singer, out of an emotion suggesting, on the meta-linguistic level, anti-Callimachean – non-neoteric values, i. e., poetic principles not adopted by the pastoral genre either. The same can be claimed for Thyrsis in the seventh eclogue, who loses the poetic contest for representing an anti-Callimachean – anti-neoteric leaning, suggested in his case also by a notable envy (cf. e. g. v. 26: invidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro), as elaborated in the previous chapter, p. 78. Menalcas’ anti-neoteric attitude is formulated again by means of language of a comic, mainly Plautine, colour. Menalcas is characterised because of his envy as perversus, in the vocative form, perverse (v. 13), a common Plautine word, also as a term of abuse77. In addition, the claim that, if Menalcas had not hurt Daphnis, he would be dead (v. 15: et si non aliqua nocuisses, mortuus esses) is a colloquial hyperbole, common in comic language (cf. Plaut. Cas. 621 – 2) 78. The same also applies to aliqua (v. 15) as well, which, apart from Plautus and Terence, where it is well-attested, appears once in Lucilius (26.632) and reappears later only here in Vergil79. Anti-Callimachean envy is also suggested by Menalcas’ charge against Damoetas of hacking the trees and the vine shoots of Micon with a mala falx (vv. 10 – 11, ‘a malicious pruning knife’, translated by Fairclough – Goold 1999, 37; for the anti-neoteric properties of malus in Vergilian Eclogues, cf. also chapter 3, pp. 141 – 2), possibly calling to mind the legal syntagm dolo malo and the relevant citation in the twelfth tables80. Note here also the parenthetic and colloquial use of 76 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 103 – 5. 77 Cf. Clausen 1994, 96. See also ThLL X 1, fasc. XII, 1861, 68 ff. 78 Cf. Clausen 1994, 96; see also Maurach 2008, 234 and n.25. The expression used hyperbolically in the sense of ‘as good as dead’, cf. OLD mortuus 1c, is a common comic turn, also found in Plaut. Cist. 647, Pers. 20, Ter. Phorm. 1015. 79 Cf. Clausen 1994, 96, Maurach 2008, 233 and n.21. See also Plaut. Epid. 100, 152, 331, Merc. 334, Mil. 221, Poen. 973, Ter. Phorm. 585, Ad. 283. A further instance appears in prose at Cic. Ver. 2.1.67: cupere aliqua evolare, si posset. 80 Cf. Coleman 1977, 111, Clausen 1994, 95, Monteleone 1994, 24.

The Bickering Scene

107

credo in place of ut credo in v. 10, a further distinct colloquialism of the Roman comic writers81. The accusation concerning Damon’s goat also suggests ‘deviation’ from pastoral ideals, aims and bucolic poetic values: Menalcas doubts Damoetas’ justification for the theft, that the goat belonged to him rightfully, since he had won it in a singing match against Damon, who subsequently refused to hand over the prize. Menalcas claims that Damoetas never owned a wax-joined pipe of his own (vv. 25 – 6: fistula cera iuncta); he, instead, used to ‘murder’ (disperdere, as translated by Fairclough – Goold 1999, 39) at the crossroads a sad melody (miserum…carmen) on a scrannel straw (stridenti…stipula, vv. 26 – 7). Damoetas is thus accused of musical incompetence82, of not possessing the value par excellence of pastoral world and genre, and, what is more, is, therefore, addressed as indoctus (v. 26), i. e., through a term of abuse of a particular importance within neoteric poetics83 again, the principles of which, as previously remarked, cf. pp. 104 – 6, are adopted by Vergil in his bucolic poetry in general and in this eclogue in particular. Damoetas is therefore presented as lacking the neoteric poetic sensibilities of a doctus, i. e., one aspiring to the Callimachean – neoteric poetic ideals, as is delineated, e. g., in Catullus’ 35, where the candida puella (a further term denoting neoteric aestheticism84) who becomes infatuated with Caecilius, the tener poeta (v. 1, a catchword also denoting neoteric awareness) of the neoteric Magna Mater, after she reads an unfinished version of the poem, is crucially described as Musa doctior (v. 17, see also previous chapter, p. 74). The language of this passage, also redolent of ‘unpastoral / anti-neoteric trends’, is again distinctly comic. Coleman 1977, 112 notes the colloquial ellipsis of vicisti and the use of the ablative gerund, instead of the equivalent participle, in v. 25, the construction in parataxis of experiamur, the use of an interjected ne cause, and the irregular word order (vv. 28 – 9), and convincingly remarks (p. 112) that these ‘are all features of the vivid colloquial style, reminiscent of Plautus and Terence’. The ‘aberrant’ pastoral behaviour – as opposed to the earlier bucolic tradition – of both Damoetas and Menalcas can be further demonstrated 81 Cf. also Clausen 1994, 95. 82 Cf. Monteleone 1994, 25. 83 Cf. also Segal 1967, 282, Schmidt 1972, 295, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 91; see also Putnam 1970, 122 – 3, Effe – Binder 1989, 75, Schäfer 2001, 90. 84 Cf. Karakasis 2005a, 102 – 3.

108

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

through a comparison with the eighth pseudotheocritean idyll, where a similar poetic contest pattern appears. As in the third Vergilian eclogue, vv. 28 ff., a wager offered by one of the two poetic competitors is rejected and in its place a second one is proposed and accepted, cf. [Theocr.] 8.12 ff. Daphnis bets a calf, just like Damoetas stakes a cow, under the condition that his opponent, Menalcas, offers a lamb. Menalcas turns the bid down out of fear for his parents, just as the Vergilian Menalcas refuses to wager an animal of his herd, because he is afraid of his father and stepmother. The movement towards the comic genre is betrayed by the Vergilian addition of the noverca in v. 33, when Menalcas justifies his refusal to stake an animal from his flock, because of an austere father and a harsh stepmother, who both check the flock twice a day, kids included (vv. 32 – 4). The scene is beyond any doubt modeled on the eighth pseudotheocritean idyll, vv. 11 – 20, where Menalcas85 does not wager a lamb, also out of fear for his stern father and mother, who have the habit of counting their sheep every evening. Vergil chooses to alter his model by introducing the ‘proverbial’86 figure of the iniusta noverca. Jerome (Epist. 54.15.4) had already claimed that the harsh stepmother figure is a topos for comedy and mime, a genre closely associated with comedy, as both literary genres show a particular penchant for the realistic portraying of every day figures87, (omnes comoediae et mimographi et communes loci in novercam saevissimam declamabunt). The character of the wicked stepmother, though absent from the palliata, is well-represented in the togata. Titinius wrote two comic plays in Roman dress, Insubra and Privigna, which deal with stepmother relationships, and Afranius, in his Divortium, also depicts a saeva stepmother. Laberius in the mime entitled Belonistria presents a further instance of a stepmother, who is in love with her stepson, whereas the reverse situation, in which an adulescens is in love with his stepmother, is staged in Pomponius’ Praeco Posterior, an atellan comedy88. Although the (cruel) stepmother does not appear in the extant palliata corpus as a dramatic figure, i. e., as having a specific ‘dramatic function’ and assisting the unfolding of the plot as in the case of the atellana and the mime, 85 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 71. Tracy 2003, 69 and n.14 draws attention to the fact that the two characters’ sharing of the same name, namely Menalcas, implies that the two pastoral figures are ultimately one and the same person. 86 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 113. 87 Cf. also Gutzwiller 1991, 134 – 5, Watson 1995, 10. 88 Cf. Watson 1995, especially 131 – 4.

The Bickering Scene

109

yet in Plautus we do find a passing reference (the first in Roman literature) to the ‘tightfisted noverca’, as in the Vergilian instance in question89. In Plautus it occurs at Pseud. 313 – 4, where the pimp Ballio responds to a claim for financial assistance with the words non esse argentum tibi, apud novercam querere 90. The language of the Vergilian lines may be a further indication of ‘comic leaning’. One should note here the colloquial / comic phrasing in vv. 35 – 6 (cf. Clausen 1994, 99) and the ausim form in v. 32, reminiscent, as Clausen loc. cit. points out, of Plaut. Bacch. 1056: ne ego cum illo pignus haud ausim dare; see also Maurach 2008, 236 and n.38, 243 and n.74. Thus, the comic, mainly Plautine, diction of the bickering scene further emphasises a comic, in ‘generic terms’, impression91. In the bickering episode there occur several colloquial linguistic features, recognisable as such by their distribution in the whole of Roman literature: they are very common in the Roman comic dramatists, often becoming a stylistic marker of comic diction, but disappear or are sparingly used, often for specific stylistic reasons, in the literature until Vergil’s third eclogue. The eclogue starts off with a formulaic expression, extremely common in Roman comedy, the colloquialism dic mihi, used as an expletive usually introducing a direct question in both Plautus and Terence (e. g. Plaut. Bacch. 600 – 1, Ter. Andr. 931 – 2, etc.), as is also the case here, (v. 1): Dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus? an Meliboei? 92. The comic diction continues in the use of the popular adjective cuius in cuium pecus (v. 89 References to wicked stepmothers in the literature up to Vergil may also be found in Catullus’ 64.402: liber ut innuptae poteretur flore novercae, referring to the type of the ‘amorous stepmother’ – term as used by Watson –, cf. Watson 1995, 14 and n.45. For the line, see also Fordyce 1961, 324. A further reference to the wicked behaviour of a stepmother appears in Cic. Clu. (cf. e. g. 70), where the orator implies that one should customarily expect from a stepmother to long for her stepson’s blood, but not from a mother to desire her son’s death, as was the case with Sassia, the mother of his client Aulus Cluentius. For the topic of the wicked stepmother in Roman literature and history, see also Gray-Fow 1988, 741 – 57. 90 Cf. also Watson 1995, 12. 91 Cf. Schäfer 2001, 103 – 4. 92 Cf. Clausen 1994, 92, Saunders 2008, 13. Donatus as well associates the Vergilian instance with Terence’s use of the formula, upon commenting on Andr. 667: semper t¹ dic mihi iniuriosum est, ut ille ‘dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus?’.

110

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

1), common in Plautus and Terence93, but absent from the purified language of classical Latin literature. What is more, the adjective occurs here in the sense of ‘whose’, ‘of whom’, in a direct question, a usage confined to comedy and Vergil (the present instance from the eclogue) 94. The popular character of the word is further proved by its reemergence in the Romance languages (Spanish cuyo, cuya), a decisive indication of its vulgar character, as Romance languages derive from the vernacular and not classical Latin95. Another mainly comic colloquial characteristic can be seen in the pronoun ipse in the sense of dominus, ‘master’, of Aegon in v. 3, very common in Roman comedy (cf. Plaut Aul. 356, Cas. 790, Ter. Andr. 360, Eun. 535, etc.), which appears in literary texts before Vergil, apart from the many instances of the comic genre, only once in Var. Men. 4796. Note also the colloquial stylistic effect of two terms of abuse, perverse in v. 13, found in Plautus but not in Terence, previously commented upon, p. 106, and pessime in v. 17. Although the latter may be translating Theocritus’ j\jiste, cf. Id. 5.75, the specific term of abuse is frequently found in Plautus, appears in Terence only twice, crucially in his linguistically Plautine play, Eunuchus (vv. 152, 1017), is absent from non-dramatic literature until this Vergilian instance, and appears later also in satire (Hor. Serm. 2.7.22, Pers. 2.46)97; in other words it shows a distribution suggesting a further principally comic / colloquial feature. A final indication is the term fures, in v. 16, commented upon by Servius with the words: pro servo furem posuit. This usage of the term is well-attested in Roman comedy only98 and seems not to occur elsewhere in Roman literature except in the Vergilian passage in question99. 93 Cf. Currie 1976, 411, Clausen 1994, 92 – 3, Tracy 2003, 71 – 2, Maurach 2008, 230 – 1; see also Karanika 2006, 112. 94 Cf. also OLD 1a, Plaut. Curc. 229, Stich. 370, Trin. 45, Ter. Andr. 763, Eun. 321. The line is also parodied by Numitorius (Donat. Vita Verg. 43), cf. also Monteleone 1994, 22, Barchiesi 2006, 404 and n.3. For the use of the adjective in indirect questions, cf. also Plaut. Merc. 199 – 200, Ter. Haut. 8. 95 Cf. Coleman 1977, 109. 96 Cf. Karakasis 2005, 38. 97 Cf. Clausen 1994, 96. 98 Cf. Coleman 1977, 111, Non. p. 310, 17: fures etiam servi sunt dicti. The case of Lucil. 28.775: agite agite, fures, mendaci argutamini, cf. ThLL VI 1, 1608, 72, is different, since the word seems to preserve here something of its initial semantic load and is not used as a simple variant for servus. 99 One could probably argue that the strong presence of the language of Roman comedy in the eclogue in question may be a way of capturing the mime-like

The Poetic Contest

111

The Poetic Contest The poetic contest begins in lines 60 ff. with Damoetas calling upon Jupiter (ab Iove principium Musae). Although there is no unanimity among scholars as to whether Musae is a vocative or a genitive (cf. Cic. Leg. 2.7.13: a Iove Musarum primordia) 100, what matters is that Damoetas starts off by invoking Jupiter, a god not particularly associated with the pastoral tradition. Even though the line seems to be a translation of Aratus’ 9j Di¹r !qw~lesha (Phaen. 1.1)101, the immediate model for Vergil is Theocritus’ line in the beginning of the seventeenth idyll, in praise of Ptolemy (9j Di¹r !qw~lesha ja· 1r D_a k^cete Lo:sai – ‘From Zeus let us begin, Muses, and with Zeus let us end’102). The Encomium to Ptolemy, however, does not belong to Theocritus’ bucolic poems, in which Zeus is not accorded any special status. It is an encomium, a poetic genre in which the appeal to the Muses and Charites, as the warranties of the excellence of the praised person’s deeds, follows panegyric ‘set generic standards’103. The pastoral pantheon, instead, consists mainly of the Nymphs, Pan, Priapus, Bacchus and Apollo (Healer), and, hence it is these deities that Theocritus’ bucolic characters invoke and not Jupiter or Hercules, as common elsewhere, mainly in oaths, in ancient literature104, cf. also pp. 18 – 9. All Theocritean instances of invocations to Zeus occur in the mouth of pastoral figures not typical of the bucolic genre, as is Battus in the fourth idyll (4.50), whose diction is paratragic

100 101 102 103 104

quality of Theocritean bucolic, a means of approximating to a low-class way of speaking and behaving in keeping with the humble background of inhabitants in the pastoral world or even a way of suggesting in terms of Latin the Doric dialect of the Greek bucolic, there being no dialectal possibilities of this kind in the Latin language. Nonetheless, without denying interpretational frameworks as those mentioned above, in my reading of the poem the concentrated presence of both comic generic motifs and distinct comic (and not only simply colloquial) linguistic features may also suggest to both the implied reader and some of the pastoral figures involved in the narrative of the eclogue a ‘generic interaction’ between comedy and pastoral. Cf. Coleman 1977, 117, Farrell 1991, 282 and n.20, Monteleone 1994, 28, Tracy 2003, 75 and n.31, Maurach 2008, 241. Serv. ad 3.60: vel Musae meae ab Iove est principium, vel, o Musae, sumamus ab Iove principium. Cf. also Ross 1975, 30 and n.3, Van Sickle 1986, 89, Farrell 1991, 281 – 2, Tracy 2003, 72, Saunders 2008, 18. Benario 1954, 199 believes that the borrowing comes from Cicero’s translation of Aratus; see also Hubbard 1998, 73. Translated by Verity 2002, 54; see also Saunders 2008, 19. Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 152 – 3. Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 156 – 7.

112

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

(i. e., alien to ‘pastoral poetic norms’), Lacon in the fifth idyll (5.74), who, however, is defeated in the poetic contest of this idyll, because of this invocation and other similar ‘unpastoral’ characteristics, and, finally, Cyclops in 11.29 (for the peculiar ‘generic status’ of the eleventh Theocritean idyll, cf. especially chapter 5, p. 200), but not in the sixth idyll when, personified by Damoitas, he follows the ‘pastoral norms’ and, as a consequence, calls upon Pan and Apollo (6.21, 6.27)105. Thus Damoetas embarks upon a bucolic song-contest by breaking, even from his first lines, basic traditional pastoral ‘generic rules’, not only in calling upon a rather non-bucolic god, Zeus106, but also in ascribing a poetic concern for his bucolic poetic production to this ‘unpastoral’ deity (v. 61: illi mea carmina curae) and not to the Muses of the ‘green cabinet’, namely the Nymphs. He seems unaware of the unfortunate literary precedent of Lacon in the fifth Theocritean idyll (with which the present eclogue communicates and to which it intertextually alludes), who appealed to Jupiter but eventually lost the contest to his poetic rival, Comatas, who invoked the Nymphs (5.17, 70), in the best bucolic tradition.

Eros Menalcas, on the other hand, imitating Theocritus’ 5.82107, calls upon Apollo, in accordance with established pastoral ‘generic norms’. His presents, however, laurels and hyacinths (v. 63), recall to mind, according to Servius, Apollo’s foiled erotic passion (cf. Ov. Met. 1.452 – 567, 10.162 – 219, the stories of Daphne and Hyacinthus). Thus the topic of thwarted love comes again to the fore, a topic which frequently lies at the heart of both comedy and elegy, but is alien to the ‘pastoral ideal’ of erotic indifference or happiness and, when it appears in the bucolic world, is often envisaged as a ‘destabilisation’ of pastoral in ‘generic terms’ (see also above, p. 102) 108.

105 Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 157. 106 Vs. Karanika 2006, 111, who reads Vergil’s introduction of Zeus into his version as evidence for the poet’s intention to ‘surpass’ the Theocritean intertext (Id. 5), which mentions the Muses and Apollo only. 107 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 73, Maurach 2008, 241. 108 Cf. Coleman 1977, 118: ‘The associations of the two plants bring a touch of sorrow to the joyous picture of spring’.

Eros

113

Erotic passion is implied also in the following couplets: Damoetas goes on to sing of a woman, Galatea, who pelts him with apples, a clear erotic plea, but then hurries off to the willows, overcome with modesty, though hoping that Damoetas will see her first (vv. 64 – 5). The theme of ‘throwing of an apple at someone’, with its clear erotic implications, is mainly an elegiac topic, which appears as a basic story motif in the tale of Acontius and Cydippe as narrated in the third book of Callimachus’ Aetia, i. e., the elegiac oeuvre par excellence for the Roman elegiacs109. The motif, although elegiac, has the sanction of Theocritean pastoral too, since it appears in 5.88 – 9 (one of the models for this Vergilian instance110), where Clearista, in Comatas’ song, is represented as pelting a goatherd with apples, as well as in 6.6 – 7111, where another Galatea, the Cyclops’ beloved, throws apples at Polyphemus’ herd. Whereas Theocritus’ Clearista showers the goatherd with kisses, following suit her previous erotic provocation with apples, Vergil’s Galatea displays a priggish evasion, which, although unattested elsewhere in the extant pastoral, has its parallels in the elegiac corpus and in lyric poetry with erotic themes. Characteristic examples are Horace (Carm. 1.9.21 – 4. 2.12.25 – 8), Tibullus (1.4.53 – 6, 1.9.44), Propertius (2.15.5 – 6), Ovid (Am. 1.5.13 – 6, Ars 1.665 – 6), all exhibiting the motif of ‘token resistance of the beloved’112. Thus Damoetas develops in his lines a primarily elegiac motif (apple throwing), which, however, is not unknown to Theocritean pastoral; nonetheless the above motif is here coupled with a clear elegiac topos without any pastoral antecedents, namely the image of the ‘pretended prudish denial of an erotic interest’, further increasing the elegiac colouring of the passage. Menalcas caps Damoetas with a song on Amyntas; after Damoetas’ heterosexual love for Galatea, a change to homosexual love is to be expected, according to the bucolic poetic contest standards. Amyntas comes to Menalcas on his own initiative (v. 66: at mihi sese offert ulto), so that he is better known to Menalcas’ dogs than the latter’s mistress, 109 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 106, 324 and n.81. 110 Cf. Cartault 1897, 141 – 2, Schöpsdau 1974, 275. See also Papanghelis 2006, 392 and n.56. 111 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 74, Monteleone 1994, 29, Papanghelis 2006, 391. 112 Formulation also used by McKeown 1989, 114, Murgatroyd 1991, 149, Maltby 2002, 230. Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 106. [Theocr.] 27 does not belong here, in my view, as I understand the initial reservations of the j|qg as sincere.

114

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

Delia113 (vv. 66 – 7), modeled on Id. 5.90 – 1. An elegiac intrusion is once more discernible here, with the appearance of a motif marker of the Roman elegy, the barking dog as a hazard to the lover. The theme is absent from pastoral, but has several parallels in elegy and lyric erotic poetry, cf. Tib. 1.6.31 – 2, 2.4.31 – 4, Prop. 3.16.17, 4.5.73 – 4, Ov. Am. 2.19.39 – 40, Trist. 2.459, Hor. Carm. 3.16.2 – 4, Epod. 5.57 – 8114. The motif appears also in erotic epigrams, cf. A.P. 5.30.4 – 5, 5.242.8115, but originates in the comic genre, its first attestation being Aristophanes’ Thesm. 416 – 7. It is also found in Roman comedy, cf. the procuress’ words at Plaut. Asin. 184 – 5: et quoque catulo meo / subblanditur novos amator, se ut quom videat gaudeat. What is more, Amyntas is figuratively described as ignis (v. 66), a noun imagery originating in Ter. Eun. 85 (although the imagery of love as a flame is quite common in Hellenistic poetical production116) and having a significant posterior Roman elegiac evolution (cf. e. g. Ov. Am. 2.16.11, 3.9.56, Epist. 16.104, 18.85 with Pichon 1966, 165 – 6; see also chapter 10, p. 323). Damoetas continues with the topic of the nested high wood pigeons (aeriae palumbes) to be brought as a gift to his beloved in vv. 68 – 9. The epithet aeriae (v. 69), absent from the Greek original, implies, for Schultz 2003, 206, a danger, exemplifying the lack of harmony among nature and man, as often suggested in the present eclogue. The lines are modeled on Theocritus’ fifth idyll again (vv. 96 – 7, Comatas sings of his present to his beloved, a ring-dove, resting on in a juniper tree). Menalcas responds with a distich, not imitating Lacon’s response (vv. 98 – 9) to Comatas’ lines in the fifth idyll, but by means of a Latin adaptation of Id. 3.10 – 11, i. e., by the theme of ‘apples offered as a love-token’, vv. 70 – 1, (cf. also Id. 11.10, 2.120), a further motif with a clear elegiac weight (cf. also Prop. 1.3.24), although not unknown to the pastoral tra113 For another reading according to which Delia is Diana, cf. also Serv. ad 3.67: Deliam alii amicam priorem volunt, alii Dianam, Schöpsdau 1974, 276 – 7 and n.27, Clausen 1994, 108. For the view that Delia is rather the name of a mortal than a deity, the opinion adopted here, and its justification in a man being in love both with another man and a woman, a motif displayed in both pastoral and elegy, cf. also Coleman 1977, 118; see also Monteleone 1994, 29: ‘ragazza, amica e contubernalis del pastore’. 114 Cf. also Nisbet – Rudd 2004, 201 – 2. 115 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 106. 116 Cf. Clausen 1994, 108.

Eros

115

dition117, cf. also pp. 113. The contest continues with two more topics having the sanction of the elegiac genre, namely ‘the fragile character of a lover’s oaths’ and the motif of the ‘erotic hunting’. Damoetas prays that a part of Galatea’s vows are heard by gods, who would thus induce her to keep them, vv. 72 – 3118. The motif of a lover’s false oath as empty talk, unheard by the gods because of its being carried away by winds or waves (!vqod_sior eqjor), is quite common in the erotic epigram (A.P. 5.6.3 – 4, 5.8.5, etc.), but absent from Greek pastoral, whereas its Roman career shows that it was common only in comedy (cf. Plaut. Cist. 472), elegy (cf. Tib. 1.4.21 – 2, 1.9.1 – 6, [Tib.] 3.6.49 – 50, Prop. 1.15.33 ff., 2.16.47 – 56, 2.28a.5 – 8, Ov. Am. 1.8.85 – 6, 2.8.19 – 20, 3.3.13 – 4, Ars 1.631 – 4), and finally lyric poetry of erotic themes (Catul. 30.9 – 10, 70.3 – 4, Hor. Carm. 2.8)119. Menalcas replies by singing of Amyntas, but it seems that, despite Amyntas’ not scorning his lover in heart (animo non spernis), Menalcas in effect does nothing but look after the nets, while Amyntas is chasing boars, vv. 74 – 5. The theme of ‘the lover carrying or watching the hunting nets of his / her darling’ also has an elegiac pedigree120. It originates in the love story of Milanion, who seduced Atalanta by carrying her hunting nets, and probably was also exploited by Gallus in his elegies121; and later it becomes central in the imagery of Roman love elegy (cf. Tib. 1.4.49 – 50, [Tib.] 3.9.11 – 2, Ov. Ars 2.189, Epist. 5.19; see also Met. 10.171 – 3). Once again no ‘pastoral pedigree’ exists. The poetic contest moves on with a further instance of erotic rivalry so common, as previously suggested, cf. pp. 100 – 4, in comedy and elegy, vv. 76 – 9. Phyllis is the recipient of the love of both Damoetas 117 However, within the so-called ‘bucolic idylls’ of Theocritus, the motif significantly appears in Id. 3 and 11, i. e., in ‘generically dodgy’ instances; for the ‘generic character’ of both idylls as standing outside the main tradition of the Theocritean bucolic corpus, cf. especially chapter 5, pp. 194 – 5, 200. 118 Cf. Monteleone 1994, 30; see also Verg. Ecl. 8.19 – 20. For the view, on the other hand, that the herdsman appeals to the gods, so that the latter would participate in his bliss, cf. La Penna 1981, 148. 119 Cf. also Klinger 1967, 56 and n.2, Skiadas 1975, 400 – 18, Monteleone 1994, 30 – 1, Navarro–Antolín 1996, 513, Maltby 2002, 221 – 2. 120 Cf. also La Penna 1981, 166, Murgatroyd 1991, 148, Monteleone 1994, 31. 121 Cf. also Maltby 2002, 229 – 30. The similarities between Tibullus’ fourth elegy of the first book, vv. 47 – 50, where the motif in question appears, Prop. 1.1.9 – 16 and Verg. Ecl. 10.55 – 60 have been considered as indicating the influence of Cornelius Gallus on the aforementioned three passages; see also Ross 1975, 85, Du Quesney 1979, 62 and n.214, Maltby 2002, 229.

116

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

and Iollas (an erotic triangle consisting of a lady and two men battling for her love, a topic well-known from and typical of comedy and elegiac eros), and possibly also of Menalcas, if one understands the lines spoken by the latter (vv. 78 – 9) in his own person and not as impersonating Iollas. In this case, one should read the address Iolla of v. 79 as distinct from formose, and Menalcas as simply addressing Iollas who is not present, as is also the case with Damoetas’ couplet122. Damoetas’ lines contain a further elegiac motif, the celebration of the birthday of the beloved (v. 76: Phyllida mitte mihi: meus est natalis, Iolla), as can be seen from a comparison with Sulpicia’s elegy on Cerinthus’ natalis dies ([Tib.] 3.11 = 4.5), and with Propertius’ 3.10, where the elegiac poet invites his beloved, Cynthia, to celebrate together her birthday. What is more, birthday merrymaking and enjoyment of the beloved, as suggested here, although absent from the extant pastoral, appears in comedy too, cf. Plaut. Pers. 768 – 9, where, lying on the couch with his beloved Lemniselenis, Toxilus asks that hunc diem suavem meum natalem agitemus amoenum. The concern for preserving chastity during festi dies, as implied in v. 77, where Damoetas sings: cum faciam vitula pro frugibus, ipse venito, suggesting, according to Clausen 1994, 110: ‘a modest, private ambarvalia’123, also has a good elegiac register. The elegiac corpus abounds in references to the anxiety for preserving chastity on sacred days, cf. Tib. 1.3.25 – 6, Prop. 2.28b.61 – 2, 2.33a.1 – 2, Ov. Am. 1.8.74, 3.9.33 – 4124. In the earlier pastoral tradition, on the other hand, no such reservations are ever expressed. Damoetas continues in vv. 80 – 1 by adapting [Theocr.] 8.57 – 9. Whereas in the Greek model the last paradigm in Daphnis’ series of negatively coloured associations is about the nefarious influence of a loving maiden upon a man (as bad as the tempest for the trees, the draught for the waters, the snare for birds, and the nets for beasts), in Damoetas’ lists Daphnis’ tender girl changes to an irate Amaryllis (v. 81). The mulier irata as a stock figure, however, is not typical of pastoral, but chiefly of the comic genre. One should mention Artemona in Plautus’ Asinaria, whose ira may be soothed by means of the audience’s applause at the end of the play, as well as Nausistrata in Terence’s Phormio, who criticises in vv. 788 ff. her husband’s (Chremes’) lack of management skills in 122 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 120, Monteleone 1994, 32. 123 Cf. also Monteleone 1994, 31, Schäfer 2001, 82. 124 For chastity during the Ambarvalia in particular, see also Tib. 2.1.11 – 2. Cf. also Harmon 1986, 1943 – 55.

The ‘Unfriendly Landscape’

117

the case of her property in Lemnos, and becomes infuriated, in the final scene of the comedy, at the news of the secret Lemnian love-affair of her husband. In addition, Amaryllis irata is likened to a lurking wolf, v. 80; the figure of the mulier irata, not typical of the pastoral genre, is further depicted by means of an additional ‘unpastoral’ device, namely the image of a wolf in a menacing disposition, hanging about the animal folds, i. e., a picture suggesting tension between man and animal, in direct opposition to the harmonious coexistence of humans and wild nature in the pastoral world, as elaborated in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 60 – 1. A similar image of a wolf harmful to sheep is also found in Thyrsis’ lines in the seventh eclogue (v. 52), and it is worth remembering that Thyrsis, as shown in the previous chapter, loses the poetic contest, for not being a typical representative of the pastoral world and its Callimachean – neoteric poetry. The two other parts of Damoetas’ simile, the rain harmful for the ripened harvest and the image of the gale stirring up the trees (vv. 80 – 1), also allude to Thyrsis’ winter imagery in vv. 49 – 52 of the seventh Vergilian bucolic125. The implications of this imagery, as developed in the case of Thyrsis in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 57 ff., are clear: it is a faux pas to depict elements of the pastoral landscape in an ‘unpastoral disposition’, i. e., not in serene settings chiefly of a cooling shade or the generic locus amoenus.

The ‘Unfriendly Landscape’ ‘Unpastoral dispositions’ persist in the two following distichs: as previously remarked, cf. pp. 17 – 8, the principal occupation of the herdsmen of the pastoral world is song-making in idyllic settings. It is by means of their excellence in bucolic song that they are valued as members of the bucolic community and not through their accomplishment of other tasks, menial or not, associated with everyday rustic activities. As a result, they are often presented as confiding their flock to the care of another herdsman or as looking for a secure place to put their cattle to graze, in order to commence their singing without any anxiety over their animals (cf. Id. 1.12 – 4, 3.1 – 5) 126, cf. p. 157. 125 For analogies between Damoetas’ simile and Thyrsis’ lines in the seventh eclogue, cf. also Schultz 2003, 208 – 9. 126 Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 148.

118

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

In some cases, however, pastoral characters are forced to drive their cattle away from somewhere, as is the case here in Ecl. 3.96 – 9. The Theocritean precedents are Id. 4.45 – 9, where Corydon urges Lepargus and Cymaetha up the hill, away from the location where they have settled, and mainly Id. 5.100 – 3, Vergil’s model for the verses under discussion, where Comatas forces the goats away from the olives, by the hill with the blooming tamarisks, and Lacon responds by calling Conarus and Cinaetha away from the oaks, to pasture in the east near Phalarus (vv. 103 – 4). These warnings, however, do not entail a pastoral environment hostile to men and animals, as is the case of the third Vergilian eclogue. Here the enmity of nature is expressed via the image of a hazardous river bank in vv. 95 – 6, dangerous to sheep, the drying of a ram’s fleece (v. 95), the drying up of the milk produced by sheep, v. 98 (in direct opposition to the image of regular and trouble-free milking of Id. 5.84 – 6, or the milking of the prolific goat at Id. 1.143) 127. The image of the ‘unfriendly landscape’, alien to pastoral idyllic settings, which are the prerequisite of song-making, is reinforced by the image of the frigid snake (v. 93), lurking in the grass (frigidus…latet anguis in herba), an image drawn from Id. 15.58128 (t¹m xuwq¹m evim), where, however, it occurs in a non-pastoral setting. In an urban mime, dealing with two Syracusan women at the festival of Adonis in Alexandria, Praxinoa reveals her fear, dating back to her early childhood, of a horse and a cold snake. This image of the cold snake carries a particular semantic weight in the third eclogue, since it upsets the peaceful and idyllic character of a typical pastoral landscape129. Furthermore, considered within neoteric poetics, the snake imagery acquires additional significance. Papanghelis 1995, 273 ff. has convincingly argued that the word venenum (= poison, venom, which the snake possesses) developed into a catchword of the neoteric jargon, denoting anti-Callimachean – anti-neoteric standards and alluding to the poisonous disposition of Callimachus’ envious ako¹m c]mor of Telchines. Catullus, for example, uses the image of venenum in c.14a.19 to speak of Suffenus, known from c.22 for his anti-Callimachean orientation against 127 For the unfriendly pastoral setting, cf. also Schultz 2003, 209 – 10. 128 Cf. Monteleone 1994, 35. 129 Cf. also Jenkyns 1998, 503 – 4, pointing out a similarity between the line from the third eclogue under discussion and A. 7.505: pestis enim tacitis latet aspera silvis, both suggesting ‘the tension between the charm of the country and its vulnerability’ – p. 503.

Eros … Continued

119

the poetry of few lines. The word reappears in order to characterise Sestianus’ rhetoric as plenam veneni (c.44.11 – 2), which, because of its antineoteric features, gave the neoteric poet Catullus a gravedo frigida (v. 13), suggestive at its turn of the literary implication of t¹ xuwq|m, as elaborated in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 62 – 3130. The notion of frigus with its literary connotations and the image of the venomous snake suggesting anti-Callimachean envy are to be found, conjoined, in the image of the serpent of the third Vergilian eclogue131. In other words, the pastoral world, as depicted in the preset eclogue, is infiltrated by an anti-neoteric disposition. To sum up, the themes of vv. 92 – 9, untypical of the pastoral community (chiefly the hostile scenery), are coupled with imagery evoking anti-neoteric poetics, i. e., poetic principles alien, in this case, to pastoral as a poetic genre.

Eros … Continued Unhappy love (not endorsed by the pastoral world, although frequently appearing in its realm, as elaborated above, cf. p. 102) re-enters the scene with vv. 100 ff., where love affects animals as well. Damoetas sings of a bull, which, although is surrounded by fat vetch, is macer (lean); an eros fatal to both master and bull accounts for the bull’s feebleness (v. 101). Emaciated animals appear also in the Theocritean pastoral, and the most immediate precedent for Vergil’s emaciated bull seems to be the calf and the bull of Theocritus fourth idyll132 having refused to feed (vv. 14 – 27), out of longing for their absent master, Aegon, who had left for the Olympic games, following Milon. Similar to the behaviour displayed by Aegon’s animals after the latter’s departure is the case of the oxen lamenting Bion’s loss in [Moschus] 3, cf. E.B. 23 – 4 (see also Verg. Ecl. 5.24 – 6) 133. Love does not affect pastoral animals (yet cf. Verg. G. 3.215 – 6), which thus contrast sharply, because of their trouble-free mating habits (cf. Id. 1.151 – 2, see also 3.1 – 5), 130 131 132 133

Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 276. Cf. Northrup 1983, 118 and n.19, Papanghelis 1995, 273 – 4, 276. Cf. also Monteleone 1994, 36. Cf. Hunter 1999, 134. Yet, for Hunter, ‘Korydon assimilates the situation to human eros’. In any case, the symptoms exhibited by Aegon’s flock, although love-like, should not be read as resulting from real amorous sentiments on the animals’ part, but are due to their yearning for their absent master.

120

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

with the emotional torments of men134. The Vergilian passage is a rare exception, although the motif appears in novel, cf. Long. 2.7.4. Whereas an amor-exitium (v. 101) is responsible for the thinness of Damoetas’ bull, Menalcas’ animals suffer the same emaciation (v. 102: vix ossibus haerent), but for a different reason, the evil eye135. It is quite established that the notion of the ‘evil eye’ has clear poetological connotations in Roman neoteric poetry of the Callimachean poetic line, suggesting the anti-Callimachean trend, cf. p. 78. The evil eye is further presented here as lethal to teneros agnos (v. 103), and, within the specific poetological background of the eclogue, the word tener may be read as having the semantic load and the function of a catchword denoting neoteric poetic principles, as is usual in the meta-language of neoteric poetry. As in the case of the cold snake (v. 93), the oculus fascinans of v. 103, directed against sheep, also ‘undermines’ the neoteric purity of the eclogue’s pastoral colour. The linguistic formulation by means of which the poet displays motifs opposing quintessential pastoral values and bucolic poetic standards of the neoteric kind deserves careful scrutiny; Vergil, as already elaborated above, cf. especially pp. 109 – 10, employs linguistic means suggesting or even marking a different literary genre, which at this point happens to be comedy again. Crucial is thus the use of his in v. 102: his certe – neque amor causa est – vix ossibus haerent, his being the reading of codd., having Donatus’ sanction as well. Commenting on hisce at Ter. Eun. 269, Donatus remarks: pro ‘hi’ vetuste; Vergilius ‘his certe…haerent’ quia ‘hice’ debebat dicere. Although his for hi is unattested in extant Latin literature, the compounded form hisce for hice, on the other hand, does appear in comedy, cf. also Plaut. Mil. 374136. Thus Vergil seems to be using here a distinct colloquialism of the comic diction, coupled in v. 103 by the also colloquial syntagm nescio quis.

Last but not Least: the Puzzling Riddles The last stage of the contest involves riddles: Damoetas asks Menalcas to tell him the lands in which the span of the sky is open no wider than three elms (vv. 104 – 5), whereas Menalcas’ riddle is about the lands in 134 Cf. Hunter 1999, 15. 135 Cf. Monteleone 1994, 37. 136 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 124 – 5 vs. Clausen 1994, 115.

Last but not Least: the Puzzling Riddles

121

which grow flowers that are inscribed with royal names (vv. 106 – 7). Riddles are absent from extant pastoral, both Greek and Roman, with the exception of the two instances in the third eclogue only (cf. also Curry 1976, 415); they are, on the other hand, very frequent in the atellana as well as in the palliata, especially in Plautus. Yet the formulation of Plautine riddles, where a brief and an enigmatic statement is followed by its farcical elucidation, is different from the type exhibited by the riddles of the third eclogue137. The contestants, within the closed textual frame of the pastoral poem, provide no solution to the riddles, and this has led to several subsequent suggestions and answers by readers of the poem: most probably an astronomical device and its location (cf. Wormell 1960, 29 – 32, Archimedes’ orrery in Rome or Posidonius’ planetarium in Rhodes; see also Segal 1967, 298) or a literary work of an astronomical interest (e. g. the papyrus roll containing Aratus’ Phaenomena, cf. Campbell 1982 – 3, 123 – 4, Hofmann 1985, 468 – 80), in the case of Damoetas’ riddle, and the flower of hyacinth springing from the blood of either Ajax or Hyacinthus and the places where hyacinth grows or a literary work again, e. g. Euphorion’s Hyacinthus (cf. Hubbard 1998, 75; see also Wormell 1960, 29 – 30, La Penna 1985, 949, Tracy 2003, 73) or Callimachus’ Aetia (cf. Campbell 1982 – 3, 124 – 6), in the case of Menalcas’ riddle138. The importance of the riddles, however, lies in their

137 Cf. Fraenkel 1922, 38 – 44. For the formulation of the Vergilian riddles under discussion, cf. also Petersmann 1977, 208, Karanika 2006, 112. 138 For an account of the proposed solutions, cf. especially Nethercut 1970, 248 and n.1, Schöpsdau 1974, 286 – 7 and n.56, Coleman 1977, 125 – 6, Briggs 1981, 1310 – 1, Clausen 1994, 116 – 8, Dix 1995, 260 and n.13, Monteleone 1994, 38 – 44, Levi 1998, 49. See also Brown 1978, 25 – 31 (Euclid’s Theorem 1.32, an answer to Damoetas’ riddle; as to the literary source, it is probably Euphorion’s Mopsopia), Clay 1974, 59 – 64 (the poem itself, an answer to both riddles), Dix 1995, 256 – 62 (the ‘Grynean Grove’, an answer to both riddles), Putnam 1965, 150 – 4 (the space of haeven allotted to Jupiter’s nurse, Amalthea, an answer to Damoetas’ riddle; see also O’ Hara 1996, 247), Savage 1954, 81 – 3 (the altar of Terminus in the Jupiter Capitolinus temple, an answer to Damoetas’ riddle), Henderson 1998, 225 who suggests that there is no single answer to the riddles. See also Freyer 1981, 46 – 51, Malaspina 1986, 7 – 15 (the exchange of riddles as a means Vergil makes use of in order to combine Alexandrian learning with features of popular culture). For ancient solutions to Damoetas’ riddle (the tomb of the Mantuan spendthrift Caelius, the well at Syene, the mundus in the sanctuary of Ceres or a well / pit in any case), cf. also Campbell 1982 – 3, 122 – 3, Dix 1995, 259 – 60 and n.12. For a not so persuasive meta-po-

122

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

presence per se, since, irrespective of their individual type, riddles largely belong to the comic genre in Roman literature. Thus with these two riddles the use of comic topics and comic linguistic / stylistic markers reaches its climax; it may be of a particular significance that Palaemon, the umpire, pronounces his verdict just after the delivery of the riddles. The referee represents ex officio and reaffirms the traditional values of the pastoral world and its poetic and generic principles, as was evident from his lines earlier in the poem (vv. 55 – 9), which described a pastoral landscape par excellence and set out, by means of easily decoded catchwords, the Callimachean – neoteric poetic options of the Vergilian pastoral genre as well139. It is he therefore who decides to bring the contest to a close, for it seems that the song-contest progressively becomes more unpleasant, with both singers bringing up song-topics which eliminate basic pastoral topoi and ideals. Thus one may be entitled to speak of a more ‘dark’ Ecl. 3 against a more ‘luminous’ Ecl. 7, where it is only one of the herdsmen who exhibits an ‘unpastoral’ and anti-Callimachean poetic attitude. Nonetheless the umpire decides to intervene after the ‘generic outlook’ of both competitors becomes clear with the help of the riddles, so closely associated with the comic genre: the two contestants’ ‘rather deviant generic behaviour’, which was gradually building up from the very beginning of the eclogue, can go no further.

The End of the Singing Match The poetic contest closes as follows: Palaemon, invested, as previously suggested, with the symbolic weight of an ‘ideal representative of the bucolic world’140, reaffirming the pastoral values within the closed texetic reading of Menalcas’ riddle (nomina regum = epic vs. flores = pastoral), see Glei 1991, 87. 139 Vs. Monteleone 1994, 45 – 82, who understands Palaemon as an incarnation of Cicero’s poetic views, representing older stylistic options of Roman poetry, although the Ciceronian stand-in eventually comes to terms with the new poetry, and Tracy 2003, 74 – 5, who also reads, on shaky and impressionistic stylistic grounds though, the arbiter as lacking neoteric aspirations; this is believed to account for the latter’s inability to distinguish between two ‘practitioners of the new poetics’. 140 Cf. also Berg 1974, 192, Schultz 2003, 220 vs. Derenne 1953, 185: ‘il [Palaemon] n’ a pas été choisi comme arbiter parce qu’ il est très versé en la poésie pastorale; il le doit uniquement au hasard’.

The End of the Singing Match

123

tual world of the third eclogue declares his inability to settle this poetic contest, which is crucially described as lites (v. 108: non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites), a term suggesting, according to Schultz 2003, 220, a ‘legal dispute’, a further ‘unpastoral’ association. In other words, the ideal pastoral character judges, after he has been listening to Menalcas and Damoetas’ performance over 48 lines, his ‘estrangement’ from what the contestants conceive as pastoral and pronounces: non nostrum… (v. 108) 141. He continues with the following declaration (vv. 109 – 10): et vitula tu dignus et hic – et quisquis amores / aut metuet dulcis aut experietur amaros. He thus calls a draw, which may be read, partly at least, as designed to counterbalance the ‘roughness’ of the first part. Emphasis, however, should rather be directed to the similarity of the contestants’ performance, neither of which seems capable of inflicting a decisive blow to the other, as happens in the parallel seventh Vergilian eclogue, where Corydon defeats his opponent by being more pastoral and neoteric. Thus both singers of the present bucolic develop a similar ‘generic pattern’, ‘deviating from’ earlier pastoral tradition towards comic and elegiac models. This ‘generic behaviour’ is further emphasised by Palaemons’ comment in vv. 109 – 10; these lines, suggesting the ckuj}pijqor character of eros142, have puzzled several scholars and given rise to a multiplicity of unnecessary emendations143. Both Menalcas and Damoetas deserve a heifer144, and so is whoever will fear sweet love or experience the bitterness of love145. The amorous disposition, suggested by these lines, is, however, typical mostly of the comic and elegiac lover; although not absent from pastoral, whenever it appears, especially in Vergil, it is mostly read as alien to the lack of erotic tension of a bucolic 141 Cf. also Leach 1974, 175, 181, Lee 1989, 55 – 6, Schultz 2003, 219 – 21 vs. Berg 1974, 192, Leclercq 1996, 438, Powell 1976, 121, Segal 1967, 300 – 2 who interpret Palaemon’s verdict as indicating the poetic merit of both Damoetas and Menalcas. 142 Cf. Braun 1971, 401. 143 For an account of emendations, cf. Braun 1971, 400 – 3. For a refutation of the emendations, cf. Derenne 1953, 182. 144 For the view that Palaemon was never aware of the cups offered as a stake, cf. Henderson 1998, 215, Rose 1942, 41. For a refutation of this thesis, cf. Schultz 2003, 219. 145 Braun 1971, 406 is of the view that both singers are given a prize, as both Menalcas and Damoetas equally experience amor. For Karanika 2006, 111, on the other hand, the present eclogue is about a ‘contest for the sake of contest’, which seems to account for the final draw as well.

124

Generic Issues in Vergilian Pastoral Again: The Third Eclogue

idealism and is often associated with cases of (generic) ‘deviation’ from the ‘pastoral norm’, cf. pp. 31 – 2, 102. Once more this underlying ‘generic fluidity / diversification’ is given by means of a stylistic formulation of the comic type, namely the association of amarus (= bitter) with words composed with the root ama- as amare (= to love), amor (= love). Apart from an instance in rhetoric (Rhet. Her. 4.21: nam amari iucundum sit, si curetur ne quid insit amari, disapproved in Quint. 9.3.69 – 70146), such combinations occur in comedy, and what is more, they are restricted to Plautus, cf. Cist. 68: Eho an amare occipere amarum est, obsecro? (a combination of verb and adjective as in the rhetorical example), Trin. 260: Amor amara dat tamen (a combination of noun and adjective as in the Vergilian instance at hand)147. So the specific combination, consisting of the noun amor and the adjective amarus, in the eclogue under discussion, seems to have its literary precedent in the Plautine examples.

Conclusions Whereas in the first Theocritean idyll, the unnamed goatherd offers Thyrsis both a cup, symbolising poetry and its values, as well as a goat for milking, suggesting the realistic rustic view of pastoral surroundings, and, thus, confirms the unity of pastoral world, Menalcas and Damoetas desire just the goat, remaining, in this way, only on the rustic surface reality of the bucolic scenery they inhabit, and not assimilating either its poetic symbolisms or poetry as an uppermost value. Both Menalcas and Damoetas seem to choose topics and formal features (language and style) that are often markers of a different literary genre, mainly of comedy and elegy. Although the motifs they develop have in most cases a bucolic veneer, their handling of such themes often moves them away from the ‘generic expectations’ of pastoral, as known from the bucolic literature up to Vergil’s time. Thus both contestants are shown as worthy of a prize suggesting the ‘realistic outlook’ of bucolics, the pastoral surface of their behaviour and song-topics, but not of a stake standing for the highest value of (pastoral) poetry itself.

146 Cf. also O’ Hara 1996, 247 – 8. 147 Cf. Brown 1987, 265 – 6.

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue A singing match quite dissimilar to those examined previously (of the third and the seventh bucolic) appears in the eighth Vergilian eclogue. The poet announces (v. 5) his intention of relating the Muse of Damon and Alphesiboeus (Damonis Musam dicemus et Alphesiboei), both eminent members of the pastoral community (v. 1: pastorum) and possessing great skill in the art of song, i. e., the pastoral value par excellence. Yet the present eclogue lacks the typical formalities of a song-contest1, as typified by relevant singing contests in Theocritean and post–Theocritean pastoral: a prize for the champion of the match, an umpire and an official verdict as to the winner (as it happens, for example, in the seventh eclogue, with Corydon) or a possible draw (as in the case of the third Vergilian eclogue). The only clue suggesting a singing match between the two shepherds here comes from the third line of the poem, where Damon and Alphesiboeus are both described as certantis (v. 3), i. e., by the catchword which, as a technical term, denotes, in pastoral terms, those engaged in a singing competition and by the phrase – quae responderit Alphesiboeus (v. 62) 2. Thus the eclogue will be structured as a friendly exchange of set songs, exhibiting several ‘structural parallels’ between them3. Despite the lack of clarity about the competitive nature of the exchange, the narrator takes special care, already from the first line (pastorum is in fact the very first word of the poem4), to bring out the pastoral setting of the eclogue (vv. 1 – 5: pastorum Musam…dicemus) as well as the neoteric poetic associations of the contestants’ pastoral song. Both rivals exhibit an Orphean sway over nature, as is evident from the ability of 1 2

3 4

Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 111. Cf. Richter 1970, 17, Coleman 1977, 227, Segal 1987, 167, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 108 and n.97, Clausen 1994, 233, Rumpf 1996, 233 – 4, Papanghelis 1999, 50, Breed 2006, 36, 48, Kraggerud 2006, 31. This lack of a proper agonistic setting in the eclogue led Sallmann 1995, 292 to suggest that the contestants take no notice of each other; see also Slavitt 1991, 33, who similarly claims that ‘no competition’ is to be understood here. Cf. also Coleman 1977, 254 – 55, Hubbard 1998, 116. Cf. Clausen 1994, 233.

126

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

their performance to make a heifer forget to graze (v. 2: immemor herbarum…iuvenca), to charm the lynx, an animal appropriate to bucolic literature, because of its links with Pan, Apollo and Bacchus5 (v. 3: stupefactae…lynces), and to stop the course of the rivers (v. 4: et mutata suos requierunt flumina cursus). The above orphic power of pastoral song (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 6.27 – 306, Calp. 2.10 – 20) is conveyed, furthermore, by means of language clearly alluding to neoteric texts: Both expressions, immemor herbarum and et mutata…requierunt flumina cursus seem to derive from a common source, the neoteric epyllion of Calvus Io 7, cf. also DServius ad 8.4. Furthermore, the syntagm mutata…cursus, which may be explained as either consisting of a participle middle in sense with its direct accusative object or as a passive past participle construed with the accusativus Graecus, is a clear neoteric marker. Such syntagms, as shown in chapter 1, pp. 82 – 5, appear, within the corpus of Vergilian pastoral, in contexts full of demonstrably ‘neoteric signs’ in concentration and thus constitute a clear–cut indicator of ‘neotericism’. Thus, the narrator establishes not only the pastoral background of the songs he will relate but also, by means of his direct intertextual references to specific neoteric works as well as by his use of neoteric wording and linguistic pointers, the neoteric aspirations of the contestants’ Orphic songs.

The Dedication Part After having established the pastoral setting of his narrative, the poet moves on to a less pastoral section, the dedication, vv. 6 – 13, addressing an unnamed patron, at whose instigation the poem was composed (vv. 11 – 2: accipe iussis carmina coepta tuis). One of the major issues of the present eclogue relates to the identity of this unnamed patron, considered to be either Octavian (cf. Serv. ad 8.6 – Augustus) or Asinius Pollio (cf. Serv. auct. ad. 8.10), with the latter being favoured by the majority of scholarly views on the subject. Clausen 1994, 233 – 7, however, has convincingly suggested (cf. also 1972, 201 – 2), based on previous discussion of the topic by Bowersock 1971, 73 – 80, 1978,

5 6 7

Cf. Coleman 1977, 227. Cf. Rumpf 1996, 233. Cf. also Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 200, Clausen 1994, 240 – 1.

The Dedication Part

127

201 – 28, that Pollio should be excluded on the basis of historical and geographical criteria: it was Octavian who was involved, around 35 BC, in military operations in the area of Timavus, whereas Pollio, the vanquisher of the Parthini in the region of Dyrrhachium, had no cause to ‘sail past the rocks of Timavus’, as the dedication clearly states (v. 6: magni superas iam saxa Timavi) 9. The next verses, which attribute to the patron excellence in the writing of tragedies (v. 10: sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna coturno), can also apply to Octavian: according to Suetonius (Aug. 85.2), Octavian had attempted to write a tragedy entitled Ajax, which, although it was never completed, might have raised great expectations as to his writing skills around the time the present eclogue was composed. Irrespective of the identity of the anonymous patron, however, these lines seem out of tune with the rest of the eclogue and its considerably pastoral thematic, and, therefore, have often been considered unrelated to the remainder of the poem and, sometimes, even read as non-authentic10. One of the aims of the present chapter is to defend the organic entity of the eclogue. The dedication11 is organically linked with the rest

8 Cf. also Van Sickle 1978, 180 and n.72, 1981, 17 – 34, 1986, 154, Köhnken 1984, 77 – 90, Schmidt 1987, 197 – 237, Mankin 1988, 63 – 76, Levi 1998, 61 – 2, Luther 2002, 46 – 7, Nauta 2006, 312 – 3. 9 For a further account for Pollio against Octavian, cf. also Wormell 1969, 11, Coleman 1977, 228 – 30, Tarrant 1978, 197 – 9, Mayer 1983, 17 – 30, Effe – Binder 1989, 102 – 4, Stabryla 1990, 177, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 108, Farrell 1991a, 204 – 11, Glei 1991, 92 – 4, Coppola 1998, 170 – 4, Seng 1999, 64 – 75, MacDonald 2005, 13 and n.4, Thibodeau 2006, 618 – 23. See also Green 1996, 225 – 36, especially 232 – 5. For an overview of the issue, cf. also Clauss 2002 – 3, 165 and n.4, Sallmann 1995, 288 and n.3, Nauta 2006, 310 – 6. 10 Cf. Levi 1966, 73 – 9; see also 1998, 61, Clausen 1994, 233. Clauss 2002 – 3, 171 – 2 tries to defend the cohesion of the poem on the basis of the corresponding references to the epic, lyric, and tragic genre between the dedication part (Timavus, Illyricum aequor, Sophocleo…coturno, crowning with ivy and laurel) and the song exchange itself (vv. 43 – 5, 70, 85 – 9, / 29 – 30, / 35, 46). Besides, the mythical association of the Timavus river and the Illyrian sea with the Argonauts correspond, in the song exchange part of the eclogue, to the presence of Medea (vv. 47 – 50, 66, 95 – 6) and Orpheus (vv. 55 – 6), also related to the Argonautic expedition. 11 For Verg. Ecl. 8 as the object of this dedication, cf. Schmidt 1987, 206; this is also the view adopted here. See, however, Nauta 2006, 314 arguing for the whole of the Eclogues book.

128

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

of the poem, when read as a recusatio12 : the poet excuses himself for writing in the genus tenue, while the songs that follow elaborate and exemplify his choice. The recusatio, as established mostly from the Augustan period onwards, is based on the crucial dichotomy between the genus grande and the genus tenue. The poet writing in the genus tenue, occasionally when addressing a patron, who is usually (but not always) urging for commemoration in the grander style, expresses his admiration for elevated literary genres and / or claims to have at some point started composing higher literature or, at least, to have had the intention to write in the genus grande, an undertaking from which he was dissuaded by a god, usually the Callimachean Apollo, by specific adverse incidents (cf. Ov. Am. 1.1, 2.2), or by a lack of ability precluding the poet from aspiring to superior literary genres (cf. also Prop. 3.3, Hor. Carm. 4.15); this Apologetische Form, lacking the apparent polemic and hostile character of the pre–Vergilian recusatio, is also known as excusatio. The decision of the poet in favour of the genus tenue is occasionally presented as a temporary choice, and, additionally, the poet either voices his intent to deal with the genus grande in the future (Ov. Am. 3.1), or, at least, does not rule out the likelihood of his composing tragedy and / or epic (Verg. Ecl. 9.32 – 6, Prop. 2.10, 3.9). If one deconstructs the dedication of the eighth eclogue, many of the constituent features of the recusatio, as mentioned above, are to be discerned: the fundamental contrast between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ literature (epic, tragedy vs. pastoral, vv. 7 – 8, 10), an address to a patron, probably Octavian, excelling or about to excel in Sophoclean tragedy (v. 10), the fiction of ascribing poetry to a patron’s iussum (vv. 11 – 2), which implies a relation, typical of the recusatio, of a patron ordering poetry and a poet recipient of such an order13, and finally a poet stopping 12 For a passing reference to vv. 6 – 13 as a recusatio, cf. also Hubbard 1998, 112, 296 – 7. Yet the scholar does not employ the term in its formalistic typology, as evaluated here; it is simply used as a semantically equivalent to denial of ‘Vergil’s ability to sing his patron’s achievements’, and its close relation to the dichotomy between the genus tenue and the genus grande as well as its relation to the rest of the poem, as an expression of ‘generic opposition’, is not touched upon. More to the point is Nauta 2006, 312—6; see also Van Sickle 1978, 178 – 82, 1986, 153, Effe – Binder 1989, 103, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 108, Farrell 1991, 284, Glei 1991, 93 – 4, Rumpf 1996, 233, Clauss 2002 – 3, 172. For recusatio in Roman literature, see especially Lucas 1900, 317 – 33. 13 Cf. Schmidt 1987, 206 claiming that iussa might refer to Octavian’s instructions as to the subject matter of the eclogue to follow, or, alternatively, the latter’s

The Dedication Part

129

himself from reporting the martial deeds of his patron, at least for the present, here with the phrase en erit umquam / ille dies, mihi cum liceat tua dicere facta? (vv. 7 – 8) 14. This statement, however, can be read as a commitment to compose a poetic work of a higher standard in the future15 ; a similar assertion also appears in another Vergilian instance, if read as recusatio with Ronconi 1981, 335, namely Ecl. 9.32 – 6, where a further Vergilian character once more contrasts his ‘humble’ pastoral poetry to the grander poetry of Varius and Cinna, which he openly avows to admire (cf. vv. 9 – 10 of the present eclogue), and, furthermore, leaves open the possibility of his working on poetry of this kind in the future16. Viewed within this contrast between genus grande and tenue, the attribute magnus that Vergil ascribes to Timavus acquires new significance; the river Timavus starts his flow at the foot of the Schneeberg, vanishes at San Canziano in subterranean streams, and reappears later at San Giovanni di Tuba, flowing at last into the Gulf of Trieste. Thus, the length of the river can hardly account for its characterisation as big, something that has puzzled scholars, who have tried to explain such an attribute by relating it either to the importance of Vergil’s patron17 or to the repute of the river and not its size18. Yet, magnus is a conspicuous catchword of neoteric poetics, denoting literature of higher and / or anti–Callimachean style. Therefore, the poetological orientation of the nameless patron (either Octavian or, less probably, Pollio, a well-known poet also of tragedies) may justify, as is often the case in the poetological world of the Vergilian eclogues, the use of the adjective magnus, as a meta–linguistic sign of the addressee’s poetics. Ver-

14 15

16 17 18

orders that Vergil takes up again the bucolic genre, see also Luther 2002, 47, 81, Nauta 2006, 315. Cf. also Leach 1974, 253, Coleman 1977, 229. Cf. also Saunders 2008, 59. This reading of the line would be further reinforced, if one understands, in vv. 9 – 10, along with Servius, Beroaldus and more recently Van Sickle 1978, 180 – 1 and n.73, 1981, 21 – 2, Köhnken 1984, 77 – 90, Schmidt 1987, 200 – 1 and Mankin 1988, 69 – 70 tua carmina as ‘songs of / about you’, i. e., poetry of a higher style as appropriate to Vergil’s addressee, and not as ‘your songs’. This interpretation, however, has already been criticised with some justification by Zetzel 1984, 141 and n.6, Farrell 1991a, 206 – 8, Clausen 1994, 235 and n.10. Yet for this meaning ‘not in itself impossible’, cf. also Nauta 2006, 314. Cf. also D’ Anna 1988, 412. Cf. Clausen 1994, 242. Cf. Coleman 1977, 229.

130

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

gil’s unnamed addressee sails past the rocks of the ‘grand’ Timavus, is the accomplisher of martial exploits deserving to be recounted in epic praise19 and his poetic taste also includes Sophoclean tragedy, i. e., the other half of the genus grande. Nonetheless, even within this framework of praise for a man of epic deeds, who aspires to elevated tragic poetry, the pastoral poet does not fail to indicate his devotion to the pastoral genre, by chipping away at the rather epic veneer of the passage through recognisable pastoral metrical habits. His address to this lofty patron is made by calquing, in v. 11 (a te principium, tibi desinam), an epic formula first used in the Iliad 9.96 – 8 for Agamemnon, as indicated by the linguistic and metrical similarities among the Homeric and the Vergilian passage20. Nevertheless, the pastoral poet dares to highlight his adherence to the pastoral genre by adopting a metrical marker of Theocritean bucolic poetry21, significantly elsewhere avoided in the Vergilian pastoral corpus: the prosodic hiatus in the bucolic diaraesis, de¯sı˘na˘m. a¯ccı˘pe˘, followed by a pause.

The Narrative Frame After this Theocritean pastoral reminiscence on the metrical level, the bucolic narrative is re-established only in vv. 14 ff., where idyllic bucolic scenery is set up, comprising a flock enjoying tender grass and a shepherd leaning on his smooth staff or, according to Servius ad. 8.16, on an olive tree22. Yet this very last image of a character about to sing before dawn, crucially depicted as standing rather than seated or lying on the grass, has its parallels mainly in the genus grande, mostly in the epic genre, and not in pastoral23 ; thus, whereas the landscape setting brings 19 Cf. Clausen 1994, 236 and n.10. Clauss 2002 – 3, 165 – 73 has also read the passage in question from a meta-linguistic perspective; thus Timavus associates the celebration of the unidentified addressee’s deeds with a body of water of epic size, whereas the Illyricum aequor hints to its not lyrical (i. e., epic) ‘generic character’; see also Saunders 2008, 137 – 8. 20 Cf. in detail Clausen 1994, 236 and n.16, 243. Elsewhere the formula is used of Zeus in didactic epic, cf. Aratus Phaen. 1.1, as well as of Ptolemy Philadelphos in his Theocritean encomium (17.1 – 4); see also Van Sickle 1978, 181 and n.74, 1986, 155, Clauss 2002 – 3, 171, Saunders 2008, 139. 21 Cf. Clausen 1994, 243 – 4. 22 Cf. also Levi 1998, 62. 23 Cf. Van Sickle 1986, 156; see also 1984, 124 – 47, Tandoi 1981, 274, Sallmann 1995, 291 – 2.

The Narrative Frame

131

pastoral as genre back to the fore, the image of the standing herdsman, with its epic undertones, further suggests the ‘generic ambivalence’ of the narrative to follow; what is more song exchange at dawn is also unusual in bucolics24. In any case several of the words used in the description of the scenery have clear poetological connotations, denoting neoteric sensibilities and poetical views, and seem to mark the transition from the non–pastoral dedication, where a movement towards higher poetic genres of anti–neoteric consciousness is clearly expressed, to the by and large re-established pastoral order of vv. 14 ff. The rather ‘anti–bucolic’ image of the chilly shade of the night that, however, has just left the heavens – suggesting in all probability the ‘unpastoral’ dedication that, scarcely only one line earlier, also gives way to the pastoral setting of vv. 14 ff. – is crucially described as frigida (v. 14), i. e., by means of a catchword denoting, as previously remarked, anti–neoteric awareness of the xuwq¹m style, cf. pp. 62 ff., whereas the protagonists of the present idyllic bucolic setting are, on the other hand, associated with terms indicative of aspiration to neoteric poetry and its values, namely in tenera…herba (v. 15), ros…gratissimus (v. 15) and possibly tereti...olivae (v. 16) too. To begin with, tener is a well-known poetological terminus technicus used mainly of neoteric love-poets and neoteric love-poetry (cf. Ov. Am. 2.1.4, 3.8.2, Rem. 757, Ars 2.273, 3.333, see also Hor. Ars 246, pp. 107, 120) but also, by and large, of poetry written in the neoteric manner, not only of a clear amatory character as Roman love elegy is. Thus the adjective tener may be read as referring here not only to the grass, much appreciated by the flock, but also to the neoteric quality of pastoral song-making, as is often the case in the Vergilian Eclogues, where features of the pastoral landscape are frequently translatable as meta-poetic markers of neoteric poetical production25. The same can also be argued for ros…gratissimus. The notion of dew is another keyconcept in Callimachean poetics, i. e., the poetic theory adopted by the Roman neoteric and neo-Callimachean faction. In his prologue in the Aetia, Callimachus describes his poetry not only as sweet like honey (v. 16: lekiwq|teqai) but also as dew drops falling from the divine air (vv. 33 – 4). Finally teres, used here probably as an attribute of the 24 Cf. Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 109. 25 Papanghelis 1995, 104 – 5 has similarly noted in the case of Verg. Ecl. 3.55: in molli consedimus herba the use of the adjective mollis, having similar poetological connotations, cf. also chapter 2, p. 105.

132

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

herdsman’s staff (v. 16), also possesses a figurative literary usage with reference to style and is equivalent (cf. OLD 2), as a literary terminus technicus, to the meaning ‘that does not jar’, ‘smooth’, ‘rounded’, (Cic. de Orat. 3.199, see also Opt. Gen. 11, Orat. 28, of poetic quality, cf. also Laus Pis. 248). More importantly, the adjective seems to belong to the Roman Callimachean jargon as well, suggesting, along with e. g. tenuis, gracilis and levis, Callimachus’ kept|tgr26, and thus is later used of the pastoral genre in particular. In Calp. 4.152: o mihi quae tereti decurrunt carmina versu, Corydon applies this term to his bucolic song, i. e., perceives it as a poetological equivalent to tenuis and deductum 27. Summing up, vv. 14 ff. seem to reinstate, to some degree at least, not only the pastoral order, disrupted in the preceding lines of the dedication, but also a belief in the values of pastoral neoteric song, as evidenced by the accumulation of several markers referring to neoteric poetics. The rest of the eclogue (with the exception of lines 62 – 3) consists of the amoebaean singing of Damon and Alphesiboeus. Both songs can be read as exemplifying Vergil’s previous recusatio; they emphasise the destructive results deriving from the denial of pastoral values, and reconfirm bucolic ideals and neoteric poetics, as the present chapter attempts to demonstrate. It has of course long been observed that eclogue 8 is characterised by an ‘unpastoral’ narrative towards elegy; what this chapter also endeavours to offer is a close meta–poetic reading of the poem from the viewpoint of neoteric – Callimachean / pastoral poetic ideals and to draw attention to a number of heretofore unnoticed points of detail, which support the modal intrusion of other genres, not only of elegy but also of epic and tragedy, into the ‘pastoral host-text’ of the present eclogue. The reading is complemented by metrical and linguistic / stylistic observations also bringing to the fore the ‘generic issues’ that emerge in the poem, both towards ‘pastoral dislocation’ as well as ‘pastoral restoration’.

26 Cf. Sullivan 1985, 78. 27 Cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 257: ‘humble verse’. Cf. also Calp. 1.93: teretique sonum modulemur avena.

Damon’s Song

133

Damon’s Song Damon sings of unrequited love28, an elegiac premise par excellence, opposing pastoral values and lifestyle, as elaborated in previous chapters, cf. pp. 19, 31 – 2, 101 – 2. In particular, the shepherd sings of his hero’s amorous feelings towards an old sweetheart of his, Nysa, who is about to marry another man, Mopsus. One should note here (v. 26) the use of the terminus technicus datur (sc. nuptum), used of a typical legal marriage, which does not belong to the world of Arcadia. This liaison, a triangle consisting of an (exclusus) amator (Damon’s goatherd), the object of the latter’s affection (Nysa) and an erotic rival (Mopsus), is for the most part an elegiac29 but also comic generic motif, found in erotic lyric poetry as well (see also Catul. 72, 81), as shown in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 100 – 2. The term chosen to describe Nysa’s love is indignus amor (v. 18: coniugis indigno Nysae deceptus amore). Characteristically, this very adjective is used of Gallus, in the poetological eclogue 10.10, for portraying his love towards Lycoris30, a non–pastoral affair of clear elegiac affinities (unreciprocated love combined with the presence of an erotic competitor31), from which the elegiac poet vainly attempts to distance himself, by adopting the carefree bucolic attitude towards love, cf. also pp. 34 – 5, 102 – 3. The use of this generically marked term here cannot be coincidental, implying as it does a ‘generic correspondence’ between the lover of Gallus’ poem and the lover of the eighth eclogue32. The same can be claimed for the fact that the anonymous lover employs the verb queri in order to describe his reaction to the amorous misfortunes he experiences (vv. 18 – 9: coniugis indigno Nysae deceptus amore dum queror): querella and queri are also ‘generic descriptive terms’ denoting the elegiac genre and composition of elegy respectively (cf. Prop. 1.7.8) 33. Thus the goatherd himself ‘self–referentially’ acknowledges the elegiac character of his situation, which is quite remote from bucolic ideals of love. 28 As for the relation of Damon as an ‘authorial voice’ to the ‘voice’ of his song, cf. especially Breed 2006, 41 – 7. 29 Cf. also Kenney 1983, 53 – 4, Papanghelis 1995, 89 – 90. For the elegiac character of Damon’s narrative, see also Sallmann 1998, 279. 30 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 260. 31 Cf. Papanghelis 1999, 50. 32 For the goatherd’s closeness to the elegiac Gallus of the tenth eclogue, cf. Richter 1970, 94. 33 Cf. Kennedy 1993, 32, 51; see also Tandoi 1981, 275.

134

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

The ‘unpastoral’ colour is further enhanced by the presence of terms such as coniunx (v. 18), placed emphatically at the head of the line and preceded by an also ‘unpastoral’ appeal to the rising day (v. 17), which frequently marks the opening of an epic narrative34, formulated in addition by means of an old–fashioned tmesis in prae…veniens, reminiscent of the loftier style of prayers35. In opposition to other literary genres, the bucolic genus is blissfully unaware of legal formalities, and, with the exception of the present eclogue (vv. 18, 66), words denoting ‘wife’ are absent from Vergilian pastoral too. Thus several scholars have tried to explain away this disagreement between country simplicity, as known from idyllic poetry, and the presence of rules and regulations as evidenced in the eclogue at hand. Thus Conington speaks of a metaphoric, hyperbolic use of the term, whereas Coleman talks of an ‘Arcadian wife’, that is a spouse with whom there is no official wedlock, although vows have been exchanged36. These readings, however, miss something of the ‘generic function’ of Nysa’s characterisation as coniunx. In this respect, a comparison with the first Vergilian eclogue would not come amiss: although not described as coniunx, one more ‘unpastoral’ ‘wife–figure’ appears in the first eclogue, which explores the borders between rural and city life and, what is more, deals with the ‘corruption’ of the pastoral world by urban notions and manners. It is the spendthrift Galatea, the bearer of a name ascribed elsewhere in pastoral to sea Nymphs (Theocr. 6, 11, Verg. Ecl. 7.37, 9.39), Tityrus’ contubernalis, whose prodigality puts at risk Tityrus’ hopes of securing a peculium for buying out his libertas. Galatea does not belong to the ‘green community’, but instead calls to mind the character type of the ‘squanderer woman’, to be met in other literary genres, mainly Roman comedy and satire37. Galatea’s ‘unpastoral’ status, despite her pastoral name, combined with clear references to terms such as peculium (private savings, the property of a slave, as Tityrus is, often mentioned in Plautine comedy as a slave’s indispensable accessory) or libertas, also alien to bucolic everyday life, are used by Vergil as obvious markers of Tityrus’ certain ‘alienation’ 34 Cf. Tandoi 1981, 274. 35 Cf. Coleman 1977, 231, Tandoi 1981, 274. 36 Cf. Coleman 1977, 231; see also Clausen 1994, 245 – 6, Perret 1961, 92, Segal 1987, 169. Cf. also Kenney 1983, 54 – 5 explaining away Nysa’s description as coniunx, read as an influence of the Acontius and Cydippe story. 37 Cf. also Duckworth 1952, 255, 283, Coleman 1977, 78 – 9, Wright (1983)–1999, 143 – 4.

Damon’s Song

135

from the pastoral world and his aspirations to city life and manners38. In a similar vein, Nysa of the eighth eclogue, although having a name with clear pastoral associations, elsewhere also used of the Nymph fostering Dionysus on mount Nysa39, is characterised as coniunx and thus functions, in Damon’s song, as an indication of the goatherd’s dissociation from the pastoral order40. It is not only Nysa’s portrayal as coniunx, but also the very wedlock imagery occurring in Damon’s song – the narration of Nysa’s wedding ceremony, which points to a movement towards the city (urbs). The description of deductio, an official Roman matrimony (vv. 29 – 30, chopping of new torches, fetching of the bride, spreading of the nuts), is quite alien to the concerns of the ‘pastoral society’, has close connections with the urban world and its poetry, elegy, lyric love-poetry and their ‘generic interests’ and ‘sensibilities’ (cf. Catul. 61.77 – 8, 114 – 5, 121, 134 – 41, 62.20 – 4). In fact the poem at this point closely resembles a literary epithalamion (deductio along with a traditional appeal to Hesperos41) cultivated in Latin literature mainly by lyric poetry of the neoteric kind (Catullus – 61, 62, see also 64, Ticidas and Calvus) 42. Of interest at this juncture is the Greek flavor of these lines, if one accepts, along with Coleman 1974, 63, the reading Hesperos Oetan for the also Greek but latinised Hesperus (vs. Vesper) Oetam. This disagreement be38 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 193 – 4; see also Skoie 2006, 305 – 6. 39 Cf. Clausen 1994, 246. 40 Cf. also Coleman 1975a, 147: ‘The contrast between coniugis (18) and uxor (29) and the precise allusions to the rituals of formal marriage in 26 and 29 – 30, introduce a note of realism that is alien to the anarchy of Arcadian society as portrayed in conventional Pastoral’. Papanghelis 1999, 50 and n.28 convincingly remarks that ‘the vocabulary of line 18 (coniugis, indigno amore) is the result of the pressure put on the pastoral lover by Nysa’s elegiac break of faith’. 41 Cf. Saunders 2008, 53. 42 Cf. Fordyce 1961, 235 – 6. The Epithalamius of Achilles and Deidameia = [Bion] 2 is rather set in an urban scenery, cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 176 and n.152. In Roman literature, the genre reappears in Statius, Claudian, Ausonius. For the movement away from ‘pastoral correctness’ here, see mainly Papanghelis 1995, 90; cf. also 1999, 53. For a ‘generic comparison’ of pastoral with the epithalamium, cf. especially Wilson 1948, 35 – 57. Catullan wedding poems are, of course, on the neoteric side as well, in terms of the wellknown dichotomy genus tenue vs. genus grande; yet they do not formally belong to the ‘pastoral discourse’, but rather fit in the urban side of the neoteric literature (bucolic = pastoral neoteric discourse vs. elegy, lyric poetry = urban neoteric discourse).

136

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

tween the grecising wording and the Roman wedding imagery43 may also be read within the framework of the opposition of Greek vs. Roman pastoral, which permeates the whole of the Vergilian pastoral corpus. Just as Hesperos leaves Oetan for the Roman wedding, which is associated with urban space and its poetry, so Greek pastoral gives way, in the present eclogue, to its Roman equivalent, frequently allowing urban values, elegiac motifs and ‘unpastoral’ – up to a point – situations to intrude in the pastoral world. This sense of the ‘unpastoral’ is further enhanced by the following lines (vv. 19 – 20: dum queror et divos, quamquam nil testibus illis / profeci, extrema moriens tamen adloquor hora). The wording of the formulation and the basic theme of the divine fides has long led scholars to correlate the lines in question with Catullan wedding songs, mainly 64.188 – 9144, where another non–pastoral figure, Ariadne of the Catullan epyllion, deserted by Theseus, abandons herself to a similar lament. What is more, one should note here also a reference to the !vqod_sior eqjor, also uncommon as a pastoral topic, as elaborated in the previous chapter, cf. p. 115. All these are, however, unfolded against the background of a pastoral stereotype, exemplified by Maenalus’ argutum nemus and the pinos loquentis (v. 22, cf. the programmatic Theocr. 1.1 – 2, 123 – 645), of nature responsive to pastoral music46, in direct opposition to the ‘de–pastoralising’ traits of both the unnamed suitor and his ex–lover, Nysa. The suitor’s unreturned love for Nysa and the latter’s wedding to Mopsus are likened to a series of adynata: unnatural sexual unions, such as the mating of a griffin to a mare, and disturbance of the natural order, as exemplified in the friendly coexistence of normally hostile species, in this case deer drinking together with hounds, vv. 27 – 847. Crucially, the second of these adynata evokes the first Theocritean idyll, where, as a consequence of Daphnis’ death, in vv. 132 – 648, a similar abnormal relation between a stag and a hound develops as a marker of the hero’s passing away, with the stag attacking the hounds. In other words, estrangement from the pastoral community and its values, as evidenced 43 44 45 46

Cf. also Breed 2006, 44. Cf. Tandoi 1981, 275, Clausen 1994, 246, Lipka 2001, 85. Cf. MacDonald 2005, 25. Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 90 – 1, Chinnici 2009, 129. For an opposition between the Arcadian setting and the unhappy love of the narrative, see also Perret 1961, 88, Fantazzi 1966, 180. 47 Cf. Braun 1969, 292 – 7. 48 Cf. also Saunders 2008, 54.

Damon’s Song

137

by Nysa’s non–pastoral affair, is equated, albeit in allegorical terms, with settings marking the decease of the bucolic poet par excellence, i. e., the demise of the highest value of the ‘green society’, bucolic poetry itself. The association between ‘alienation from the pastoral world’ and ‘detachment from bucolic singing’, as suggested above, is made more obvious in lines 32 ff. The anonymous suitor of Damon’s song recounts the reasons for which Nysa despises him: she loathes his pipe and goats (v. 33: dumque tibi est odio mea fistula, dumque capellae) and is also repulsed by his bushy eyebrows and scruffy beard (v. 34: hirsutumque supercilium promissaque barba). The above lines are clearly modeled on Theocr. 11.31 – 3, 50, where Polyphemus is said to have a kas_a avq}r, while the unkempt beard in all probability harks back to Theocr. 3.8 – 9 (pqoc]meior)49. Yet, whereas Nysa’s scorn for her suitor’s repulsive facial traits has its parallel in the Theocritean corpus, her contempt of her former lover’s fistula is a Vergilian innovation50. In other words, the Vergilian Nysa sneers not only at her lover’s shabby and rustic appearance as well as at one of pastoral’s main activities, goat herding, but also at the uppermost value of the pastoral world, the fistula, the pan–pipe, i. e., the Theocritean s}qicn, which usually stands metonymically for bucolic song51; this in direct opposition to a previous image of pastoral serenity, with Pan awakening the idle reeds, Panaque, qui primus calamos non passus inertis, v. 24. Thus Vergil’s Nysa, gradually depicted with ‘anti–pastoral’ qualities, finally proves to be ‘alienated’ from the ‘green community’ to the extent of looking down on its most vital feature52. Perhaps in order to emphasise this, Damon slips into a metrical oddity: the avoidance of an iambic shaped word after hirsutumque, thus producing coarse rhythm53. In other words Nysa’s ‘drifting apart’ from the pastoral world and its central value, bucolic poetry of the neoteric kind, is underlined by this metrical and ‘unpastoral’, i. e., uncommon in the pastoral genre, ‘deviation’. In vv. 37 – 41, the rejected lover reports on his first encounter with Nysa, when, as a twelve years old boy54, he served as a guide to the little 49 Cf. Richter 1970, 90, Coleman 1977, 236, Clausen 1994, 249, Lipka 2001, 49, MacDonald 2005, 25 – 6. 50 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 112. 51 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 90, Hunter 2006, 116. 52 Cf. also Papanghelis 1999, 50. 53 Cf. Clausen 1994, 249, Hellegouarc’h 1964, 287 – 9. 54 Although Servius ad. 8.39 thinks: id est tertius decimus. ‘alter’ enim de duobus dicimus; cf. also Coleman 1977, 237.

138

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

Nysa and her mother55, and fell in love at first sight. These lines on the lover’s old flame are demonstrably modeled on Theocr. 11.25 – 7, where a further instance of ‘love at first sight’, a motif clearly Alexandrian in nature, is also brought up56. When comparing these two passages however, one comes across alterations in the Vergilian alternative, which have two main objectives: to underline and emphasise the amorous sentiments of the young boy and to stress the neoteric and pastoral associations of the love to be born. Whereas in Theocritus the girl is gathering hyacinths, in the Vergilian version Nysa collects apples and, significantly enough, dewy apples (v. 37: roscida mala). Apples have arguably an apparent erotic function, often appearing in classical literature as love-signs57, cf. also pp. 113 – 5. What is more, these apples, which symbolise the love to be born in this encounter, are described as roscida, i. e., by means of an adjective derived from ros (dew), a catchword denoting, as elaborated in detail above, cf. p. 131, Callimachean aesthetics and neoteric sensibilities. Furthermore Vergil’s Damon lays emphasis on Nysa’s being parvam (v. 37), when such an explicit characterisation is absent from the Theocritean model, as well as on the frail character of the boughs, fragilis ramos, that the boy could reach from the ground (v. 40). Both parvus and fragilis (also suggesting the notion of ‘brittle’, ‘fragile’, ‘flimsy’, ‘kept¹r’ in opposition to durus), although the latter adjective is used literally here in the sense of ‘crackling’, are watchwords patently carrying specific meta–poetic semantic load within Callimachean – neoteric aesthetics and poetics58. Another modification towards Callimachean kept|tgr is evidenced by the addition of the syntagm saepibus in nostris (v. 37), substituting the Theocritean 1n eqeor, v. 27, which, according to 55 I follow Klinger, Coleman and Clausen in translating cum matre (v. 38) as ‘with your (i. e., Nysa’s) mother’ in opposition to La Cerda, Conington and Page, who understand ‘my (i.e, the anonymous lover’s) mother’, under the influence of the Theocritean 1lø s»m latq· (11.26). For a more thorough discussion of the two alternative readings, cf. Clausen 1994, 249 – 50. In any case, our reading of the lines is not affected by the alternative adopted. For a detailed metrical analysis of the passage in relation to its Theocritean model, see Nussbaum 1984, 94 – 5. 56 Cf. Klinger 1967, 135, Richter 1970, 46, Putnam 1970, 267 – 70, Coleman 1975a, 148, Hubbard 1998, 112 – 3, MacDonald 2005, 26. 57 Cf. Kenney 1983, 55. See also Richter 1970, 142, Leach 1974, 154, Coleman 1977, 236. 58 Lipka 2001, 49 rightly speaks of Vergil’s amplifying ‘the kept|tgr of the scene’.

Damon’s Song

139

Coleman 1977, 236, renders ‘the setting more intimate and domestic’59. Saepibus in nostris gives a feel of the ‘familiar’, the ‘known’, standing in opposition to the ‘distant’, the ‘unknown’, which, in Callimachean poetic theory, as set out in the prologue of the Aetia, symbolises anti–Callimachean aesthetical preferences, identified with the far–flying cranes and arrows, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.51 ff. Furthermore, this story of a ‘love at first sight’ takes place at a tender age (vv. 37 – 40), something which adds another pastoral element to the lovers’ past, in direct opposition to their present, ‘unpastoral’, situation. A distinct ‘generic marker’ of ‘pastoral love’ relates to the young age of the lovers, the male partner included: Polyphemus in Theocr. 11.9 is presented as %qti cemei\sdym peq· t¹ st|la t½r jqot\vyr te ; in a similar vein the post–Theocritean eighth idyll (v. 93) presents Daphnis as being %jqabor 1½m 5ti, cf. also vv. 3, 28, 29, 61, 88. This tendency becomes evident in both Vergilian (cf. Ecl. 7.4 – 5) and post–Vergilian pastoral as well, cf. Calp. 260. The unnamed herdsman’s love-story as narrated in Damon’s love-song, having started as both pastoral and of neoteric – Callimachean quality, is at the moment moving away from the ‘pastoral purity’ of its past. Damon’s song is thus built on a corner–stone antithesis, pastoral past of the neoteric kind vs. ‘unpastoral’ present of rather anti–Callimachean principles. The love for Nysa, exhibiting neoteric associations, loses its Callimachean outlook the moment it ceases to function as a pastoral affair. Thus, whereas Damon’s reference to a pastoral past abounds with terms denoting Callimachean aestheticism, terms and notions of the opposite kind appear in concentration, when a movement away from the ‘pastoral society’ is evident in the present. The unnamed lover realises now (nunc) what love is (quid sit Amor, v. 43) in imitation of Theocr. 3.15: mOm 5cmym t¹m =qyta . baq»r he|r61. It is a child not of our race or blood (nec generis nostri puerum nec sanguinis, v. 45), born on a hard rock either on Tmarus, in Rhodope or the furthest Garamantes 59 Cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 110. Jenkyns 1998, 144 – 5 sees in the image of the ‘enclosed garden’ an allusion to the virginity of the puella and, what is more, interestingly aligns this setting with the bridal imagery of Catul. 62.39 – 42, 45. Significantly enough, the poem that Vergil seems to allude to, according to Jenkyns, is another wedding poem, again having nothing to do with ‘pastoral purity’. 60 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 55. 61 Cf. also Klinger 1967, 139 – 40, Hubbard 1998, 113, Papanghelis 1999, 53 and n.35.

140

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

(duris 62 in cotibus illum / aut Tmaros aut Rhodope aut extremi Garamantes, vv. 43 – 4), a line modeled on Theocr. 7.77. This change of model and the geographical designations of the above lines are quite interesting, considered in terms of Callimachean poetics, as evoking the idea of the ‘unknown’, the ‘distant’, the ‘faraway’, ‘the exotic and remote wilds’ – Coleman 1977, 23863, especially the African tribe of the extremi Garamantes, which stand in direct opposition to the sense of the ‘wellknown’ and the ‘nearby’ suggested by saepibus in nostris. This notion of the ‘remote’, the ‘far-off’ symbolises in the programmatic prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia, by means of the imagery crucially comprising again the distant Africa (Egypt, Pygmies) and Asia (Scythians and Medes, 1.13 – 6 Pf.), the opponents of the slender Muse. Besides, the reference to geographically distant parts seems to constitute a further pastoral motif denoting ‘dislocation’ and ‘alienation’ from the pastoral world / genre64, as is also evident in the case of vv. 64 – 6 of the first programmatic Vergilian eclogue (cf. also vv. 37 – 42 of the fourth Calpurnian pastoral, p. 252), and to recall the elegiac misfortune that Nemesianus’ lover in 4.51 – 4 also experiences (see also chapter 10, p. 334). Of importance is also the characterisation of durus, implying, as a literary term opposed to mollis, anti–Callimachean tenor of the elevated genres, epic and tragedy65. Thus, the erotic feelings that the anonymous suitor begins to experience within the pastoral settings of the past, depicted by means of terms suggesting the notion of the Callimachean and neoteric, are modified in the present to a love-story not only of the ‘unpastoral’ kind but also alien to neoteric values. This affection, born as pastoral love-affair, then changes into a ruthless love with tragic and epic associations (Euripides’ and Ennius’ Medea, Apollonius’ Argonautica): love teaches a mother, the cruel Medea, to defile her hands with her own sons’ blood, in opposition to the image of the tender bucolic mother looking after her young daughter in the idyllic world of the past (vv. 47 – 8: saevus Amor docuit natorum sanguine matrem commaculare 62 Also accepted by Mynors – OCT vs. nudis. For the syntagm duris...cotibus having the sanction of the epic Aeneid (4.366) as well, cf. Klinger 1967, 139. 63 Cf. also Richter 1970, 143, Putnam 1970, 271, Tandoi 1981, 285 – 6. Hubbard 1998, 113 – 4 sees in Verg. Ecl. 8.43 ff. an influence of Catullus’ 60 and 64.154 – 7. 64 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 203 and n.93. 65 Cf. also Kennedy 1993, 59.

Damon’s Song

141

manus 66). Thus the neoteric idyllic love (presented in a positive light) is being transformed into the anti-neoteric love par excellence, a lovestory chiefly of the tragic genre (presented in negative colours), which is the one that the anonymous recipient of the present eclogue cultivates. However, as a result of this mythological heroic exemplum, Damon’s song, despite the singer’s appeal to his pan-pipe for Maenalios (i. e., pastoral) versus (incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, versus modeled on Theocr. 1.6467), loses again something of its pastoral character, since tragic and heroic material, even in the function of a simple exemplum, seems not to be in keeping with established pastoral poetics68. Mutatis mutandis, the same could also be argued for in the case of Alphesiboeus’ song that follows, and its reference to the mythological exemplum of Circe, v. 7069. The love that sprung in the boy’s breast was a malus error (v. 41) after all, and consequently was doomed to change into an ‘unpastoral’ affair. Apart from the instances where malus is simply used as a term of abuse, the adjective refers, within the corpus of the Vergilian eclogues, to persons or situations perceived as inimical to the bucolic space and its values. More specifically, it denotes something not belonging to ‘pastoral space’ or characterises any ‘anti–bucolic deviation’ taking place within the precincts of the ‘green world’. A first instance of malus thus employed appears in Ecl. 1.50: nec mala vicini pecoris contagia laedent, where Meliboeus is pleased with Tityrus’ remaining in the bucolic world, thanks to the intervention of the urban god (vv. 40 – 1). Thus Tityrus will be able to protect his flock against the disastrous effects of the insueta pabula as well as the mala vicini pecoris contagia (vv. 49 – 50), obviously associated in a negative light with the alienation from the familiar ‘pastoral space’. Anti–Callimachean, i. e., ‘anti–pastoral’ envy is also implied in the case of Menalcas’ accusations against Damoetas for cutting Micon’s trees and vine shoots with a mala falx (Ecl. 3.11), as elaborated in the previous chapter, cf. p. 106, while Telchinian envy also underlies the collocation mala lingua at Ecl. 7.28. Thus the clear ‘anti–bucolic’, 66 For the tragic colouring of vv. 47 – 50, cf. also Hubbard 1998, 112 and n.136; see also Leach 1974, 155, Papanghelis 1999, 52 – 3. For an account of the textual problems and the different readings of vv. 49 – 50, cf. mainly Vahlen 1908, 526 – 44, Coleman 1977, 239 – 40, Clausen 1994, 252. 67 Cf. also Van Sickle 1986, 158, Sallmann 1995, 289 – 90, Breed 2006a, 348 and n.55, MacDonald 2005, 27 – 8. 68 Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 162. 69 Cf. also Saunders 2008, 75.

142

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

anti–neoteric associations of the word in the world of the Vergilian eclogues foreshadow the ‘unpastoral’ sinister outcome of an initially pastoral love-affair. Crucial is also here the use of the equally programmatic error70, linking Damon’s lover with various Vergilian lovers in the eclogues71, and thus further suggesting ‘unpastoral dispositions’ or, in any case, a sense of a ‘generic deviation’. Erro and its cognates are also used within the Vergilian eclogues corpus of the elegiac love experienced by Pasiphae, as she wanders in the mountains in search of her love (Ecl. 6.45 – 60, v. 52 in particular: tu nunc in montibus erras, cf. also chapter 1, p. 83) 72. Furthermore, it applies to the sheep belonging to the love–struck Corydon of the second eclogue (2.21: mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae), when ready to sacrifice his pastoral identity to his elegiac love, and finally to the elegiac poet Gallus, Ecl. 6.64: errantem Permessi ad flumina Gallum. The anonymous suitor of Damon’s song commits suicide in the end; this again is a rather ‘unpastoral’ deed73, a feature mainly of a tragic lover (e. g. Haemon in Sophocles’ Antigone) 74, as well as a leitmotif in the discourse of the elegiac lover (cf. also Parth. 9q. Pah. 4, 5, 10, etc., Tib. 2.6.19 – 20, Prop. 1.6.27 – 8, 2.8.17 ff. Ov. Rem. 17 ff., 601 ff.). In elegy, the lover contemplates committing suicide according to a standard ‘generic trend’75, as is also the case with the adulescens in love of the comic genre (e. g. Ter. Phorm. 551 f.)76 ; yet the unnamed 70 71 72 73

Cf. especially Putnam 1970, 270, Schmidt 1972, 144. Cf. also Breed 2006, 40. Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 148 – 50. In Theocritus’ bucolics, only once a herdsman threatens to commit suicide (3.25 – 7). Yet, this is simply a rhetorical device, a turn of phrase without any intention of accomplishment; see also Otis 1964, 111, Richter 1970, 61 – 3 (cf. also pp. 92 – 3), Papanghelis 1995, 95, MacDonald 2005, 26 (‘probably a comical exaggeration’). The suicide of the homosexual lover in [Theocr.] 23.20 – 1 significantly occurs in a non-pastoral idyll, cf. also Klinger 1967, 143. Leach 1974, 157 and n.21 sees Daphnis’ death in the first Theocritean idyll as a precedent for the image in question; see also Gow 1952, 30 – 1. Yet, Theocr. 1.140 does not suggest suicide as here, for Daphnis apparently passes away before his alleged drowning in 5ba N|om ; see also Hunter 1999, 89, 104. For a possible but generically indifferent association of the lover’s suicide with the so-called ‘Leucadian leap’, see also Leach loc. cit. 74 Cf. Richter 1970, 61. 75 Cf. also Murgatroyd 1994, 254. 76 Cf. also Duckworth 1952, 239 and n.5.

Damon’s Song

143

goatherd passes away being conscious of his ‘alienation’ from pastoral. Feeling himself as ‘drifting away’ from the pastoral world, the goatherd of Damon’s song chooses to end his life (vv. 58 – 60)77 without compromise. Just before his drowning, he gives a final farewell to the woods, i. e., to the pastoral world (vivite silvae, v. 58), to which he remains faithful. This farewell to the woods probably harks back to Theocr. 1.115 – 878, where the archetypical pastoral singer voices a similar apostrophe before passing on. The goatherd thus acquires the status and the function of an emblematic defender of the pastoral community and its chief value, pastoral song. What is more, the goatherd delivers a series of adynata which express a wish for the coming of the Golden Age79 with its distinct feature, the supremacy of pastoral song: Tityrus, metonymically the inhabitant of the bucolic space, the pastoral singer, will become an archetype of poetical ability and craftsmanship80, identified with mythical poetical / musical figures such as Orpheus and Arion, sit Tityrus Orpheus, / Orpheus in silvis, inter delphinas Arion, vv. 55 – 681. Papanghelis 1995, 257 – 301 has convincingly remarked in 77 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 275, Leach 1974, 156 – 7 and n.20, Papanghelis 1995, 94 – 5. 78 Cf. Clausen 1994, 254, Papanghelis 1995, 95. 79 Cf. also Rohde 1925, 42, Klinger 1967, 141, Leach 1974, 157. Fantazzi 1966, 181 sees here a caricature of the topos. 80 For Tityrus as a symbolism of Vergilian pastoral, cf. also Kollmann 1973, 69 – 85, Hubbard 1998, 50. See also Verg. Ecl. 6.4 – 5. 81 For a different pessimistic interpretation, cf. especially Hubbard 1998, 114 – 6 and p. 116 in particular, where the scholar claims that Verg. Ecl. 8 ‘calls into question the Orphic powers of pastoral verse at the very time they are proposed’. See also Breed 2006, 50 – 1. Thus, it could be counter-argued here that Verg. Ecl. 8.52 ff. might seem a paradoxical wish for the advent of Golden Age, since a series of adynata, probably to express despair, are further topped with the image of omnia vel medium fiat mare (v. 58) – possibly playing on Theocr. 1.134. Nonetheless, one should also pay attention to both the fact that v. 58: omnia vel medium fiat mare does not belong to the same strophical unit (vv. 58 – 60) with the earlier adynata (vv. 52 – 6) and that the narrative focus of the various strophes in Damon’s song significantly varies, is – in any case – not always the same. According to my reading, Damon’s herdsman initially expresses his wish for the coming of the Golden Age (cf. above n.79) – clearly suggested by the typical aetas aurea imagery of wild animals fleeing before domestic fauna, the copious and unusual vegetation, and finally the picture of trees bearing golden fruits as well. After this craving of his for Golden Age assets, the unnamed lover realises once again his distancing from the ‘pastoral orthodoxy’ of his past and consequently wishes (for himself) all to become mid-ocean, i. e., to drown, as he throws himself into the waves.

144

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

the case of the fourth eclogue that, from the point of view of poetics, the New Golden Age symbolises ‘New Poetry’ as well; therefore, by praying for the arrival of the Golden Age, Damon’s goatherd reaffirms his faith in the values of neoteric poetry, in this case specifically of the pastoral kind. Even the saying certent et cycnis ululae (v. 55), despite its proverbial character (cf. also Lucr. 3.6 – 7)82, suggesting as it does a poetic hierarchy (swans vs. owls – cf. Theocr. 5.136 – 7), can be read as a wish on the goatherd’s part for the continuation of the pastoral certamen – singing match / song exchange, whereby it is customary for the contestants to be described by means of animal terms denoting a contrast (superior vs. inferior) with respect to poetics and music, cf. also Theocr. 5.23, 7.37 ff. (see also Verg. Ecl. 9.32 – 6)83.

Alphesiboeus’ Song At this point, Alphesiboeus succeeds Damon on the ‘bucolic scene’. His song narrates the story of an unnamed character again (it is uncertain whether the name Amaryllis mentioned in v. 77 belongs to the song’s main figure or to her servant lady84), who practices magic with the help of her maid, in the hopes of compelling her ‘husband’, Daphnis, crucially bearing the name of the archetypical pastoral hero85, to break up with his urban lover, return to their home in the country and thus restore the disturbed pastoral order, as clearly expressed by the song’s refrain – ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daphnin. The song is arguably modeled on one of Theocritus’ urban mimes, namely the second Theocritean idyll, the subject of which is the magic performed by Simaetha with the assistance of Thestylis, in order to win Delphis back, an effort which seems not to be crowned with success, in opposition to the Vergilian adaptation. Yet Vergil has palpably managed to transform Theocritus’ urban story into a rustic version, followed also by Nemesianus, 4.62 ff., mainly by placing the nar82 Cf. also Richter 1970, 144, Putnam 1970, 274, Coleman 1977, 241, Clausen 1994, 253 – 4. See also Theocr. 1.136. 83 Cf. also Richter 1970, 70. 84 Cf. MacDonald 2005, 18 – 9 and n.14; see also Sallmann 1998, 275. For Scafoglio 2006, 65 – 76 the female figures of the eighth Vergilian eclogue (Nysa and the unnamed sorceress) are free agents, responsible for their own actions. 85 Cf. Richter 1970, 97, Putnam 1970, 280, Tandoi 1981, 306, Segal 1987, 169, Saunders 2008, 75.

Alphesiboeus’ Song

145

rative in the countryside as well as by giving his characters names with an obvious and well-known ‘pastoral history’ (Amaryllis and Daphnis) 86. Magical practice enters literature mainly with the Sicilian mime (Sophron) and Menander, although instances of magical practice are occasionally to be found in earlier higher literature, cf. e. g. Aesch. Eum. 307 ff.; yet Theocritus, drawing on these forerunners, does present magical practice both in his urban idylls (Id. 2) and in his bucolic songs, namely in Id. 7, when Simichidas asks Pan to help Aratus in his love-affair; thus Theocritus gives to a predominantly urban motif (originating in mime and New Comedy) the sanction of the pastoral genre as well (7.103 – 10), by apostrophizing Pan, that is an eminent god of the pastoral pantheon, who in addition has the function of a shepherd87. Nevertheless, as remarked above, Alphesiboeus’ song follows the magical !cycµ of the second urban idyll and not the ‘bucolised magic’ of the Thalysia 88. In relation however to its Greek original, the Latin ‘idyll’, apart from transforming an urban mime into a pastoral poem of a 86 Cf. also Klinger 1967, 134, Richter 1970, 95 – 7, Berg 1974, 121, Coleman 1975a, 147, Segal 1987, 167 – 8, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 111, Clausen 1994, 256, Papanghelis 1995, 88 – 9, Jenkyns 1998, 173, Levi 1998, 63. The best analysis of the relation between the Theocritean model and the Vergilian text is Segal 1987, 167 – 85 to which I am indebted in matters of comparison between the two poems; cf. also MacDonald 2005, 17 – 23. 87 Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 157 – 60. 88 In the case of Alphesiboeus’ song, Vergil is a novice in ‘transplanting’ into Roman pastoral the motif of magic (drawn from urban mime and comedy but closely associated in Roman terms chiefly with the elegiac genre), following the footsteps of Theocritus in the case of Greek pastoral with idyll seven. Vergil thus functions as his heroine, his unnamed sorceress, being a beginner in magical practice, as evidenced among other things by the lack of belief in the effectiveness of her magic (vv. 103, 107 – 8). Thus, whereas Damon’ song, having as a whole nothing particularly new to propose in ‘generic terms’, is allowed to be performed by a simple herdsman, Alphesiboeus’ song, pastoralising the magic theme in Rome, requires the guidance of inspiration goddesses, the Muses, and this is why Vergil chooses to appeal to them here. For scholarly reaction to Vergil’s appeal to the Muses in the case of Alphesiboeus’ song, cf. Cartault 1897, 313 ff. (close imitation of the Theocritean model, acknowledging on Vergil’s part of Theocritus’ superiority; however, see also Richter 1970, 103 – 4), Putnam 1970, 278 (the poet’s magic being unable to save Tityrus), Coleman 1977, 243 (emphasis on the ‘literary novelty’ of Alphesiboeus’ song, association of the Pierides with Thessaly, the homeland of magic), Tandoi 1981, 293 – 5 (victory of Alphesiboeus; an overview of the issue is also offered), Papanghelis 1995, 99 (for a more sophisticated multi-leveled analysis involving among other things the notion of a ‘Hellenistic / Alexandrian footnote’ as well).

146

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

clear rural setting, does also call attention to poetry and its worth, pastoral poetry of the neoteric kind in particular. One of the most obvious structural similarities between the Theocritean model and its Vergilian recreation consists in the repetition of an incantation refrain, namely Theocritus’ Wucn, 6kje t» t/mom 1l¹m pot· d_la t¹m %mdqa89 that changes in Vergil’s ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daphnin. Yet, whereas in Theocritus it is the Wucn, i. e., the wheel – wagtail that will bring the beloved home, in the Vergilian version such a task is assigned to carmina 90. Carmen has at least two basic meanings in Latin, that of ‘incantation’ as well as that of ‘song’91. The sorceress’ carmina (spells) aim at re-establishing the pastoral order, by forcing the adulterer Daphnis to return to his pastoral liaison. On a meta–poetic level however, the anonymous magician’s carmina (songs), marked off by neoteric mottos and Callimachean catchwords, could be read as attempting to ‘correct’ Damon’s ‘straying’ from ‘pastoral neoteric orthodoxy’. As previously discerned in the case of Damon’s song, Alphesiboeus canticum also lays emphasis on the notion of kept|tgr, as evidenced by the accumulation of terms aspiring to neoteric or anti–neoteric poetics. Whereas in Theocritus 2.2 the magician’s assistant has to wreathe a bowl (jek]bam) with red wool (voimij]\ oQ¹r !~t\), in the Vergilian version the wool that must be wound around the altar is not red but only mollis (v. 64: molli cinge haec altaria vitta), the well-known term of neoteric poetic theory, which requires no further elaboration here. Additionally, the burning of pinguis verbenas, v. 65 (pinguis being another term denoting paw}, and thus suggesting anti–Callimachean bulk), may be also read as the melting, dissolution of something possessing ‘unpastoral’ – anti–neoteric qualities, thus making place for the reinstatement of a pastoral neoteric soundness. In the same vein, the song is described as able to make the cold snake burst asunder (v. 71: frigidus in pratis cantando 89 Cf. MacDonald 2005, 28. 90 Cf. also Glei 1991, 243, Rudd 1996, 61. For the view that Vergil emphasises the function of carmina to a greater extent than Theocritus, see also Richter 1970, 85, Putnam 1970, 280, Berg 1974, 185, Tandoi 1981, 300, Segal 1987, 177 and n.34, Hubbard 1998, 116 and n.142. 91 Cf. also Richter 1970, 20, Van Sickle 1978, 182, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 108 and n.98, Haber 1994, 48, Rumpf 1996, 238 – 9, Papanghelis 1999, 54 and n.38. Hardie 2002, 126 associates the pun on the two senses of the word with the elegiac genus of the Augustan period. For an evaluation of the term in Latin literature, cf. especially Desport 1942, 40 – 3, De Meo 1983, 139 ff.

Alphesiboeus’ Song

147

rumpitur anguis), and it is worth recalling that the snake imagery, as also argued in detail in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 118 – 9, is closely associated with anti–Callimachean traits, something which imparts by contrast to the sorceress’ song the quality of the Callimachean and neoteric. Snake charming by means of an incantation, which makes the snake puff up until it explodes, is known from Lucilius, 20.575 – 6, onwards, see also Tib. 1.8.20, Ov. Am. 2.1.25, Med. 39, etc.; however, the specific snake imagery, and especially its association with the meta–poetically pregnant notion of coldness – frigidus, which does not occur in the aforementioned instances, seems to give backing to the meta–poetic reading of the passage. A further interesting comparison with the Theocritean model comes from v. 78: necte, Amarylli, modo et ‘Veneris’ dic ‘vincula necto’, adapting the Greek (Id. 2.21) p\ss’ ûla ja· k]ce taOta . ‘t± D]kvidor ast_a p\ssy’92. Vergil evidently stresses here the notion of weaving, entwining93, which, although alluding to the magical practice of jat\deslor94, on a literary meta–poetic level constitutes one more familiar metaphor for composing poetry, cf. Ov. Pont. 4.2.30, Laus Pis. 164 (cf. OLD necto 10). This is especially true of bucolic poetry, as evidenced by the parallel of the weaving imagery in the first Theocritean idyll (vv. 45 – 54), where the ecphrasis of the cup contains the depiction of a boy, read as a mask of the bucolic poet himself, weaving traps for crickets, i. e., bucolic poetry / music, cf. pp. 13 – 495. Although aiming at reinstating the ‘pastoral renegade’ Daphnis in his bucolic space, yet Alphesiboeus’ sorceress does not desire to retrieve ‘pastoral righteousness’, but instead strives after an inversion of roles, also alien to pastoral serenity, the rural calmness that comes in direct opposition to any kind of sorrowful, tormented love considered as ‘deviation’ from the idyllic "suw_a. More specifically, the anonymous heroine here, Daphnis’ former lover, wishes limus ut hic durescit et haec ut cera liquescit / uno eodemque igni, sic nostro Daphnis amore (vv. 80 – 1). This line, partly modeled on Theocr. 2.28 – 9 with the addition of the image of the hardening clay, has been interpreted in two different ways. Under one analysis, Daphnis’ ex-lover uses two images of Daphnis or lumps of material standing for 92 Cf. MacDonald 2005, 19. 93 Cf. Putnam 1970, 282 – 4. 94 For a detailed analysis of the relation of lines 73 – 84 to magical practice, cf. mainly Tandoi 1981, 302 – 6. 95 Cf. Hunter 1999, 77.

148

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

Daphnis, one of wax that she melts, and another of clay that she hardens, hoping to make Daphnis hard towards other women but tender towards herself. Alternatively, the figurines in this magical act belong to two different persons: one is a wax figure of Daphnis, and the other a clay image of his former pastoral lover96, symbolising an inversion of the present situation, whereby Daphnis will melt for love of the sorceress, whereas the latter will be hard and indifferent towards him. The latter interpretation, also supported by DServius ad 8.80: se de limo facit, Daphnidem de cera, has not enjoyed much favour among scholars, who tend to prefer the first reading. However, DServius’ reading, also accepted by Rose 1942, 157, yields a better meaning in this case, since, as Faraone 1989, 295 has convincingly shown, in the extant corpus of ancient incantations there are no spells having the ability to transform something into a completely opposite state, as is the case with the notions of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ of the present spell97. On the other hand, the situation involving a hardhearted and unyielding female (dura) and a lovesick male in her pursuit is the typical elegiac relationship of the urban space98. Note that the use of the verb duresco itself bears intentional ‘generic associations’, alluding as it does to durus, a terminus technicus generically denoting the unyielding female lover mainly of Roman love elegy (cf. Tib. 1.8.50, Prop. 1.1.10, 1.7.6, 1.16.30, 1.17.16, 2.1.78, 2.22a.11, 2.22b.43, see also e. g. Ov. Ars 2.527, Fast. 4.111). Daphnis’ ‘unpastoral’ conduct leads to his ex-lover’s equally ‘unpastoral’ reaction, typical of the elegiac genre rather than of a bucolic setting. As in the case of Damon’s song, Alphesiboeus’ characters also adopt ‘anti–bucolic’ ‘generic attitudes’, evident as early as on v. 66, where the enchantress describes herself in a similar way to Nysa’s 96 For this view, cf. especially the detailed analysis of Faraone 1989, 294 – 300. See also MacDonald 2005, 20. 97 Vs. more recently Katz – Volk 2006, 170 – 1. On the basis of relevant comments made by both Luck and Coleman (cf. Katz – Volk 2006, 171; see also Faraone 1989, 295 and n.6), Katz and Volk take it that both wax and clay concern Daphnis. However, in their view, durescere is not associated with Daphnis’ growing indifference towards other women, but rather implies his sexual erection, brought about by his passion for the unnamed sorceress. Nonetheless, the linguistic parallels adduced in support of the sexual connotations of durus are too scanty to be conclusive: the only supportive quotation comes from Plaut. Truc. 916: in lecto hic exspectando obdurui; this, however, is yet another controversial case. Cf. OLD 2, where the word obdurescere in this Plautine instance is given the meaning ‘to become hardened, insensitive, or callous’. 98 Cf. Kennedy 1993, 32 – 3; see also Sallmann 1995, 297.

Alphesiboeus’ Song

149

depiction in Damon’ s song, as coniunx, coniugis ut magicis sanos avertere sacris. This reading, whereby the pastoral female character desires an elegiac transformation of her present situation, which will give her the upper hand, is further supported by a similar wish in vv. 85 – 9. Here Alphesiboeus’ female lover wishes that Daphnis will experience the elegiac wandering of a cow through the groves in search for her mate, alluding to the well–known story of Pasiphae as related in Verg. Ecl. 6.45 – 60 as well (for the rather elegiac character of Pasiphae’s wandering, see also above and chapter 1, cf. pp. 83, 142) 99. What is more, the sorceress does at the same time draw on a macabre Lucretian intertext, namely 2.352 – 66100, which also speaks of a cow looking for her lost calf, and thus wishes that Daphnis will suffer like a heifer that, when looking for her mate in the woods (a situation close to the rather elegiac Waldeinsamkeit motif), sinks down worn out without being able to enjoy the delights of the pastoral setting, due to its forlorn erotic passion of a rather elegiac character. Daphnis’ wife hopes that a similar longing will seize Daphnis, so that she will be able to show him cruelty and elegiac erotic coldness, equally alien to an idealised pastoral erotic peacefulness. It is Daphnis who is now subjected to this elegiac practice and not the sorceress, and thus the pastoral community and its values are in danger once more! This erotic attitude, although deriving from Lucretius, is further complemented by means of anti–neoteric – ‘anti–pastoral’ wording, namely perdita, nec serae meminit decedere nocti (v. 88), a verse copied from an epic poem, Varius’ De morte101, which has as its subject the hunt of a doe by a Cretan hound. Significantly enough, when describing the burning of bay (v. 83), the unnamed female figure says: Daphnis me malus urit, following Theocr. 2.23: D]kvir 1l’ !m_asem102. Yet Vergil adds to the Theocritean model the adjective malus103, which has, as previously shown, pp. 141 – 2, clear ‘unpastoral’, anti–neoteric associations, denoting a ‘defector’ of the pastoral world and its principles. Vergil uses all available means to make the ‘anti–pas99 Cf. Breed 2006, 40. 100 Cf. also Breed 2006, 39; for vv. 85 – 9, see especially Bernardi-Perini 2002, 24 – 33. 101 Cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 111 and n.105, Levi 1998, 64, MacDonald 2005, 22 and n.19. 102 Cf. MacDonald 2005, 21. 103 Cf. Lipka 2001, 53, who, however, claims that ‘Vergil inserts the ‘neutral word’ malus (Daphnis) that does not add much to the meaning in this context’.

150

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

toral defection’ of Alphesiboeus’ account crystal clear. Despite all the above statements, Daphnis’ wife is still in love with him, as is evident from v. 92: pignora cara sui, ‘dear pledges of himself’104, although the clear legalistic connotations of pignora, mandare (v. 93) and debere (v. 93)105 once more take us away from a ‘pure’ pastoral setting. Uncertain of the efficiency of her carmina, Daphnis’ wife has decided to use herbas and venena gathered in Pontus (vv. 95 – 9), given to her by Moeris. Note here the evident anti–neoteric associations of venenum, as explained previously, cf. pp. 62 – 3, 118 – 9, in conjunction with the also Telchinian notion of the ‘distant’, suggested by the remote Pontus, and the counter–rustic whisking off of the crops to other fields, a legal offense punishable by the twelve tables (8.8a) 106, which is here presented as one of Moeris’ (a name with no ‘pastoral history’ whatsoever) main achievements, along with his ability to transform into a wolf and to call spirits back from the grave. Yet the enchantress’ recourse to such ‘unpastoral’ magic potency is followed by the abrupt efficacy of her magic, signaled with wording which suggests pastoral neoteric values; this phrasing (v. 108) significantly derives from an intertext (1.104 – 5) 107 in Lucretius, a didactic poet who has decisively influenced the Roman neoteric movement (cf. also introduction and chapter 1, pp. 32 – 3, 72). Although there are doubts as to whether Daphnis has really returned to his pastoral home or the sorceress is simply projecting her own dreams (v. 108: credimus? an, qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia fingunt?) 108, Daphnis seems to come back to the bucolic world, having abandoned his negatively coloured and reprehensible (in pastoral terms) urban love–affair; pastoral is safe and fortified again109. What is more, the figure of the dog Hylax barking in limine, suggesting as it does the ianua and its asso104 105 106 107 108

Clausen 1994, 262. Cf. Coleman 1977, 249 – 50. Cf. Perret 1961, 95. Cf. Hardie 2002, 21 and n.48. For an ambiguity in the case of Daphnis’ return, cf. Williams 1968, 304, Segal 1987, 177, 180, Solodow 1977, 761, Haber 1994, 51, Hubbard 1998, 117, Papanghelis 1999, 54 – 5, Jenkyns 1998, 183 – 4, Hardie 2002, 126, MacDonald 2005, 23, Breed 2006, 40, Saunders 2008, 53. In opposition to such open-endedness, for the view, also followed here, that Daphnis has actually returned, cf. Klinger 1967, 134, 145, Putnam 1970, 289 – 90, Richter 1970, 152, Coleman 1977, 253, Clausen 1994, 239 and n.27, Levi 1998, 65, Skoie 2006, 307; see also Van Sickle 1986, 152, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 111, Sallmann 1995, 291, Rudd 1996, 61. 109 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 290 – 1.

Conclusion

151

ciations with paqajkaus_huqom (cf. Hor. Carm. 1.25.3 – 4: amatque ianua limen), and thus standing as an obvious symbol of the exclusus amator of mainly the elegiac world (cf. also Murgatroyd 1991, 195 and previous chapter, pp. 113 – 4), all the same testifies in the present case to Daphnis’ negation of an urban, i. e., elegiac love and his reinstatement in the ‘green society’. Thus the enchantress’ (neoteric) carmina function as a v\qlajom (meaning ‘healing’, ‘poison’ and ‘spell’) against the sufferings of (an ‘unpastoral’) love, a remedium amoris 110, a property of poetry which appears, albeit with different characteristics, both in the Theocritean pastoral world, as evidenced e. g. by the healing impact of Cyclops’ song in the eleventh Theocritean idyll, and in Callimachean ideology, Ep. 46 Pf.111. Lipka 2001, 140 – 1 has crucially remarked that a colloquial linguistic colouring, although largely avoided in the rest of the eclogue, creeps up at the end of the poem, in vv. 105 ff. It is certain, on the basis of the linguistic standards set out in the introduction, p. 50, that syntagms like – nescio quid certe est (v. 107) and parcite in the sense of ‘be silent’ (v. 109) do impart a colloquial character to the wording of this last segment of the eclogue. It is quite interesting, from a stylistic point of view, that this happens only when the pastoral order is re-established, that is at the moment when Daphnis breaks free from his urban love-affair and returns to his older pastoral liaison; pastoral order is thus linguistically marked by means of colloquial touches, which often function as staple features of both rustic speech and the narrative of the pastoral genre in general.

Conclusion Both poems, Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’, deal with unhappiness and discontent provoked by a disordered pastoral world, due either to Nysa’s or Daphnis’ urban associations and their ‘straying’ from pastoral ideals. As a result of the overthrow of ‘pastoral space’, Damon’s unnamed suitor commits suicide, wishing with his final breath for a restoration of the ‘green cabinet’ and its ideals. Likewise, in Alphesiboeus’ case pastoralism is reaffirmed, whereas ‘anti-bucolic’ conduct is clearly 110 Vs. Hubbard 1998, 199; see also Kappelmacher 1929, 96 – 8. Cf. also Richter 1970, 40, Berg 1974, 185. 111 Cf. also Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 180 – 1.

152

The Poetics of Recusatio: The Eighth Eclogue

condemned, as the pastoral order is finally re-established with Daphnis’ walking out on his urban love-affair with the aid of the witch’s carmina (incantations, songs). Thus both poems can be read as professing pastoral values and, on the level of meta-language, pastoral poetic trends, and consequently as elaborating the poet’s unwillingness, in terms of a recusatio, to occupy himself with the genus grande, although he acknowledges Octavian’s or even Pollio’s superiority in the tragic genre. Vergil excuses himself for opting for the genus tenue, for pastoral in particular, at least temporarily. In other words, both songs, following after the dedication, strive to justify and exemplify the poet’s choice, since as v. 63 asserts: non omnia possumus omnes.

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic ‘An Epitome of Generic History’1 Although not of the competitive character exhibited by the third and seventh bucolic, the present eclogue also deserves to be classified as a form of poetic contest, being a multi–issued amoebaean interaction between two song performances2, in accordance with ‘amoebaean generic rules’. Without prizes or umpire, it takes the form of a friendly exchange of songs, of the kind mainly known from the seventh Theocritean idyll as well as the eighth Vergilian eclogue. Mopsus and Menalcas, both herdsmen aspiring to pastoral poetic ideals of the neoteric kind, as exemplified already at the outset of the poem (vv. 1 – 2: boni quoniam convenimus ambo, / tu calamos inflare levis, ego dicere versus, containing the neoteric poetological catchword par excellence, levis3), meet in an idyllic landscape, where, after an initial exchange of compliments, they proceed to perform their songs. The introductory line presenting the two singing characters is modeled on [Theocr.] 8.3 – 44, where in a similar vein Menalcas and Daphnis are presented as both skilled at piping and singing; yet, as Hubbard 1998, 87 has observed, whereas the Theocritean intertext does not distinguish between the singing supremacy of the one pastoral figure and the piping superiority of the other, in the Vergilian version each herdsman has his own distinct field of excellence. Mopsus is endowed with a great piping ability, whereas Menalcas possesses a first–rate singing talent. Such a specialisation points to ‘different traditions, different domains of excellence’; cf. Hubbard 1998, 875. The remark acquires fur1 2 3 4 5

The formulation is of Breed 2006a, 363. Cf. Baumbach 2001, 108. Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 224 – 5. Cf. Cartault 1897, 162, Hubbard 1998, 87, 197 – 8, Saunders 2008, 29. Cf. also Breed 2006, 57. Hubbard 1998, 86 – 99, 107, 131 reads in the eclogue an opposition between Mopsus as an avatar of Gallus and Menalcas as a representative of Vergilian pastoral. More convincing is Seng 1999, 26, for whom Menalcas and Mopsus respectively represent different phases of Vergilian bucolics, namely the traditional stage as exemplified by Ecl. 2 and 3 and the innovative period with Ecl. 1 and 4 as its main samples; see also Schmidt 1972, 231.

154

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

ther weight, if one takes into account that Vergil has used this very same beginning of the eight pseudotheocritean idyll in his seventh eclogue as well, vv. 4 – 5: ambo florentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo, / et cantare pares et respondere parati, without crediting his herdsmen with different pastoral skills this time6. We are thus faced in the case of the fifth eclogue with a conscious Vergilian alteration of his model, with further literary implications. What is more, this specialisation seems to violate up to a point another pastoral topos, according to which two members of the ‘green cabinet’ are represented, within an agonistic setting, as equal in two different attributes, qualifications or characteristics (song, beauty), cf. in addition to [Theocr.] 8.3 – 4 and Verg. Ecl. 7.4 – 5, Calp. 2.3 – 4: formosus uterque nec impar voce sonans, Nemes. 2.16: ambo aevo cantuque pares nec dispare forma. The aim of this chapter is to read this singing exchange not only as a form of poetic inspiration of a young singer by an older member of the ‘green cabinet’, but also as a form of a poetic investiture approaching epiphany settings, mainly known from Hesiod, Callimachus and their Roman followers. Furthermore, it will be argued that Mopsus largely functions as a ‘reader’ of the history of Theocritean and post–Theocritean pastoral, whereas Menalcas represents a Roman version of the genre, where politics impose their presence in the bucolic space and thus guarantee its existence and continuation. This mingling of traditional pastoral literary trends with touches of encomium in the form of a political allusion gradually creates a new, ‘diversified’ Roman pastoral.

The Framing Narrative A serious dilemma as to the place where the two singers will be seated in performance appears from the beginning of the framing narrative: the elder Menalcas proposes the shadow of hazels mingling with elms (v. 3: hic corylis mixtas inter consedimus ulmos), whereas the younger Mopsus counter–proposes a cave, overrun by a wild vine with its clusters (v. 6: sive antro potius succedimus). Whereas the coolness of the shadow of a tree, offered as alternative by Menalcas, is the regular option for performing

6

Cf. Hubbard 1998, 87 and n.83.

The Framing Narrative

155

pastoral song, cf. Theocr. 1.21, 5.31 – 37, in the present eclogue it is significantly the antrum that is eventually chosen; Mopsus thus works his will on Menalcas, who in his turn appears to be doing the younger member of the pastoral community a favour, giving in to the latter’s preference, v. 19: successimus antro. This choice can be seen as reinforcing a reading of the eclogue as poetical initiation, since antrum is a conventional location not just for poetic creativity but also for poetic initiation8. Thus in the ‘epiphany’ of the sixth bucolic, where the history of Roman Callimacheanism is being ‘revealed’, both recipients of this ‘revelation’, Chromis and Mnasyllos, notably listen to Silenus’ relevant account in a cave, v. 13: in antro. What is more, in the well–known elegy 3.1 of Propertius, where the elegiac poet presents his initiation to Callimachean poetic attitudes as a kind of bacchic sacral offering, Callimachus’ and Philetas’ slender Muse is portrayed as being initiated within a cave setting (v. 5: dicite, quo pariter carmen tenuastis in antro?) 9. The poetological associations of the cave enhance the image of a poetic induction, also secured by the age distinction (the younger Mopsus vs. the older Menalcas) as well as by the exchange of gifts, which closes the narrative (vv. 85 – 90, cf. also 2.36 – 8, 6.64 – 73). The herdsman’s crook alludes to both Hes. Th. 29 – 32 and Theocr. 7.128 – 9, where the semi–divine figure of Lycidas acknowledges Simichidas’ initiation into pastoral by offering him his crook10. At the same time, the image of the wild vine (labrusca) overrunning the cave alludes to the locus amoenus par excellence, Calypso’s cave in the Odyssey, 5.68 – 911, and thus intertextually marks Mopsus’ choice, odd at first sight for a bucolic songcontest, as a locus amoenus, generically indispensable for delivering pastoral song.

7 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 88. What is more Putnam 1970, 167 – 9 sees this preference of Mopsus as a rejection of pastoral. 8 Cf. Putnam 1970, 167, Papanghelis 1995, 142, Hunter 2006, 7 – 41. For the association of caves with poetic inspiration, cf. also Hor. Carm. 2.1.37 – 40, 3.25.1 – 6, Prop. 2.30b.26, 3.3.14, with Nisbet – Hubbard 1978, 31, Nisbet – Rudd 2004, 300, Berg 1974, 116 – 8. See also Theocr. Ep. 3 and 5, where Pan’s epiphany is associated with caves, Hubbard 1998, 155 and n.26, Calp. 1.8 ff. 9 Cf. also Berg 1974, 117, Hunter 2006, 14 – 5. 10 For typological features of initiation pastoral scenes, cf. especially Papanghelis 1995, 156 – 7. See also Hubbard 1998, 99 vs. Breed 2006, 67 – 8. 11 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 155.

156

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

After a further compliment addressed to Mopsus by Menalcas (v. 8: montibus in nostris solus tibi certat Amyntas) and the latter’s sarcastic reply (v. 9: quid, si idem certet Phoebum superare canendo?), the elder herdsman proposes the choice of a traditional topic for Mopsus’ song (vv. 10 – 11): Phyllidis ignes, Alconis laudes, iurgia Codri 12. Mopsus however chooses a different theme, namely %kcea D\vmidor, i. e., the primary subject matter of pastoral song and, what is more, the focus of the programmatic first Theocritean idyll13. Lament for an eminent bucolic figure is also the subject of post–Theocritean pastoral (E.A., E.B.) and, apart from the fifth eclogue, the topic is reworked in the tenth Vergilian eclogue as well (cf. also Nemes. 1). The goatherd thus opts for a programmatic topic14 having clear ‘generic implications’ (founding pastoral as a genre, cf. also introduction, pp. 13 – 4, 19) in comparison to all the common pastoral alternatives suggested by Menalcas. Furthermore, Mopsus has inscribed his carmen on the trunk of a beech tree, i. e., crucially on a tree having clear programmatic ‘generic properties’ in Vergilian pastoral15, often a metonymy of Vergilian pastoral itself, marking words and tunes in turn (vv. 13 – 5). Not only is this the first reference to writing in the bucolic world16, but it also puts Mopsus in the place of a ‘writer’, who, unlike a spontaneous pastoral composer of oral poetry, ‘reads out’ his accumulated poetical experience formulated in written words and tunes on a tree of self–evident ‘generic propensities’. Thus Mopsus’ song can be viewed as his ‘reading’ of the previous pastoral tradition17, 12 Cf. also Coleman 1975a, 151, 1977, 156, Van Sickle 1986, 109, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 95 – 6. Hubbard 1998, 88 – 9, not very compellingly, discerns in the subject matters proposed by Menalcas counter-pastoral properties suggesting different literary genres, namely erotic poetry (love of / for Phyllis), encomium (Alcon’s praise) and finally invective (gibes at Codrus). 13 Cf. Hunter 1999, 87, Coleman 1977, 157; see also Wormell 1969, 15, Levi 1998, 54. For a detailed comparison of Theocr. 1 with Mopsus’ account of Daphnis’ death in the fifth Vergilian eclogue, see especially Kraggerud 2006, 33 – 4. 14 Cf. Breed 2006a, 363. 15 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 49 and n.11, Kenney 1983, 49 – 50. 16 Cf also Fey-Wickert 2002, 181, Breed 2006, 58 and further below, pp. 180 – 1. 17 Cf. also Breed 2006, 59 – 60, where an analogy between Mopsus’ inscribed song and the cups of the third Vergilian eclogue is drawn, as both suggesting a ‘history of the Eclogues and of pastoral itself’, see also pp. 25, 63 – 4; yet this is a passing comment with no further elaboration on either the structure, the quality or the width of such a ‘historical account’ in the case of Mopsus’ song in the fifth eclogue.

Mopsus’ Performance

157

as an account of basic elements structuring both Theocritean and post–Theocritean pastoral. Mopsus’ song begins only after a basic generic topos of pastoral has been fulfilled: the animals Mopsus was in charge of are left to the attention of a third herdsman, Tityrus, v. 1218, so that the singer can be freed from his herding cares and thus devote himself to the pastoral – in ‘generic terms’ – occupation par excellence, i. e., bucolic song, viewed here as an alternative to realistic pastoral occupations. This formalistic component of the pastoral genre (cf. also Theocr. 1.12 – 4, 3.1 – 3 with Hunter 1999, 111 – 2, Verg. Ecl. 9.23 – 5), framing and introducing Mopsus’ account of Daphnis’ death, is followed in the song itself by several other standard generic motifs and techniques of pastoral, thus building on the construction of a discourse on bucolic poetry as a genre and its (also formalistic) cohesion from Theocritus onwards. Mopsus’ song abounds in generic topoi of this kind and thus may be read as a concise account / an epitome of some kind of pastoral as a genre.

Mopsus’ Performance Theocritean as well as post–Theocritean pastoral is, as already remarked, pp. 11 ff., generically defined by an accumulation of certain motifs and literary patterns. First of all, pastoral as a genre acquires its own pantheon, with an emphasis given to the Nymphs, upon whom pastoral fictional characters usually swear19. As it becomes clear from the bucolic Theocritean idylls, the Nymphs, ever–present in the bucolics, take over the role of the inspiring deity, usually ascribed to the Muses (cf. also introduction, p. 18), who are accordingly marginalised in Theocritus’ pastoral universe. A characteristic example occurs in Id. 7.148, where Simichidas / Theocritus crucially invokes the Nymphs for his ‘bucolisation’, see also 91 – 3, Id. 5.140, 149, Verg. Ecl. 7.21 – 220. The Nymphs are, however, regular residents of the caves21 and, accordingly, Mopsus’ option for an antrum, as discussed above, pp. 154 – 5, seems to 18 Cf. also Schmidt 1972, 85, Papanghelis 1995, 226, 2006, 380, Rumpf 1996, 210. In the present eclogue one comes across several constituent features / motifs of the pastoral genre in concentration; for the formalistic completeness of the present eclogue, cf. also Guerrini 1973, 683—94. 19 Cf. Hunter 1999, 136. 20 Cf. also Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 153 – 6. 21 Cf. Hunter 1999, 113.

158

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

acquire further significance. Not only is the cave a place of poetic inspiration in general but also, and more importantly, a location associated with the Nymphs, who have acquired the function of the main inspiring deity within the pastoral pantheon. An initiation to a ‘revised and expanded’ pastoral poetry, as I read the eclogue, is therefore justified in taking place in a site closely linked with the inspiring pastoral deities par excellence. Mopsus’ song repeatedly mentions the Nymphs, giving them greater ‘dramatic depth’ in comparison to the Theocritean version, for the young goatherd, in opposition to his Theocritean model, vv. 66 – 7, has these deities present at the death of an eminent bucolic singer, as is also the case with the post–Theocritean pastoral, E.A. 19, E.B. 28 – 922. What is more, whereas in the first Theocritean idyll Daphnis’ mother is absent from her son’s last hours, this is not the case with the fifth Vergilian eclogue, where the mother of the archetypical bouj|kor, herself significantly a Nymph, takes part in the lamentation for her son (vv. 20 – 3)23. The image of a mother mourning over her son, the so-called mater dolorosa motif (term as used by Hubbard 1998, 89), seems to be influenced by a similar function of Aphrodite in E.A. 24 ; thus Mopsus appears once again to be viewing a primarily Theocritean theme through the accumulated experience of post–Theocritean pastoral as well.

22 Cf. Klinger 1967, 93, Berg 1974, 124. For the motif of the Nymphs mourning the pastoral hero, cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 69. 23 Cf. also Levi 1998, 54. For points of difference between Mopsus’ account of Daphnis in relation to his Theocritean intertext, cf. also Hubbard 1998, 89 – 91. 24 Cf. Drew 1922, 57 – 9, Leach 1974, 185; see also Perret 1961, 60, who, in addition, sees here a possible reference to the image of the Venus Genetrix lamenting for Caesar’s loss. Hubbard 1998, 89 – 90, on the other hand, sees here an ‘epic’ motif as exemplified mainly by Thetis and Achilles in the Iliad and Eros and Memnon in the Aethiopis, and reads Mopsus’ song against an epicising background. Yet, in spite of its epic origin, the motif of the ‘female mourner’, through the intermediary of Venus in E.A., has been included in the post-Theocritean pastoral register and this seems to account for its insertion here to a large extent. What is more, the motif also appears in non-epic sources, as is for example the mourning of Calliope for Orpheus in A.P. 7.8.6 (Antipater of Sidon), also suggested as model for the Vergilian line in question, cf. Rohde 1963, 51, Schmidt 1972, 204 – 5. A ‘transcending’ of pastoral is discerned also by Leach 1974, 191 in Mopsus’ song, but insofar as it is ‘establishing the relevance of a traditional theme to the affairs of the great world’.

Mopsus’ Performance

159

The pastoral pantheon however does not consist only of the Nymphs. Apollo25, mainly Apollo Paian, Pan26, Priapus27, whose portfolio all but overlaps with that of Pan’s, and Dionysus also belong to the divine circle of the pastoral genre (see also introduction, pp. 18 – 9) 28. Pastoral characters in Theocritus often swear upon Pan (cf. Id. 4.47, 5.14, 141, 6.21), a god of herdsmen as well as of pastoral song29, and upon Apollo (cf. Id. 5.79 – 82, 6.27). What is more, Lycidas, the semi–divine figure of the seventh Theocritean idyll presiding over bucolic has clear apolline characteristics30, although the association of this programmatic figure with Pan too, especially because of the kacyb|kom he bears, is by no means out of the question31. Dionysus also has links with the ‘generic foundation’ of pastoral: the programmatic figure of the bucolic poet as a boy weaving a cricket–cage in the first idyll is set within a context of clear dionysiac associations (a fully grown vineyard), while the ivy cup of the same idyll, also standing as a symbol of pastoral poetic craftsmanship, alludes to a dionysiac miracle, as described in h. Dion. 40 – 132, cf. also p. 14. Both Apollo and Dionysus, who also function as deities of poetic inspiration in general, with the latter being extremely trendy in the Augustan period33, appear in Mopsus’ account of Daphnis’ death. Apollo is briefly mentioned in v. 35 as leaving the idyllic pastoral locus after the fates had borne Daphnis away (vv. 34 – 5), to his dismay. Apollo leaves the fields together with Pales (v. 35: ipsa Pales agros atque ipse reliquit Apollo), the Italian counterpart of Pan34, thus sug25 Cf. also Theocr. 7.101, Bion fr. 10.8, E.B. 26, Verg. Ecl. 3.62, 5.9, 6.11, 29, 66, 82, 7.22, 62, 64, Calp. 4.9, 57, 70, 72, 89, 159, 6.16, 7.22, Eins. 1.17 – 8, 23 – 4, 27, 32, 37, 2.38, Nemes. 1.65. 26 Cf. also Theocr. 1.3, 16, 123 – 4, 4.63, 5.58, 7.103, 106, [Theocr.] 27.21, 36, 51, Bion fr. 10.7, Mosch. fr. 2.1 – 3, E.B. 28, 55, 80, Verg. Ecl. 2.31 – 3, 4.58 – 9, 8.24, 10.26 – 30, Calp. 4.133, Nemes. 1.5, 3.11, 66. Cf. also Kettemann 1977, 59 – 60. 27 Cf. also Theocr. 1.21, 81 – 91, Verg. Ecl. 7.33, Calp. 2.65. 28 Cf. Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 156. 29 Cf. Hunter 1999, 15. 30 Cf. Williams 1971, 137 – 45. 31 Cf. Hunter 1999, 148, Brown 1981, 59 – 100. See also Luck 1966, 186 – 9. This reading of Lycidas as a god has however been criticised with some justification by both Giangrande 1968, 515 – 33 and Arnott 1996, 64 – 6. 32 Cf. Hunter 1999, 62, 78, 198. See also A.P. 6.154, where, in an epigram of pastoral thematic by Leonidas, Dionysus is associated with Pan and the Nymphs. 33 Cf. Hunter 2006, 11, 42. 34 Cf. Du Quesnay (1976 – 7)–1999, 355. Pales does also belong to the pastoral pantheon of post-Vergilian bucolics, namely Calp. 2.36, 4.102 – 6, 5.24 – 5,

160

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

gesting Vergil’s Roman reading of the Theocritean generic pastoral pantheon. As for Dionysus, Mopsus’ relevant references are more detailed, since Daphnis is identified with Bacchus. Daphnis, just like Dionysus, is presented as taming the Armenian tigers and yoking them to the chariot (v. 29, for Dionysus see Verg. A. 6.805, [Tib.] 3.6.15 – 6, Coleman 1977, 161), as instituting a thiasos (v. 30), a club of worshippers – often related to Bacchus, and finally as entwining the bacchic thyrsus (v. 31), the dionysiac emblem which, because of its etymological connections with the common pastoral name Thyrsis35, further testifies to the dionysiac properties of pastoral as a poetic genre. The emphasis accorded to Dionysus in the present eclogue, as already suggested above, is further reinforced by the importance attributed to the bacchic vine in vv. 32 – 4, where Daphnis is praised through the comparison with a series of plants or animals considered precious in the pastoral word. This is one more well–known Theocritean pattern, occurring in post–Theocritean pastoral as well, cf. [Theocr.] 8.79 – 8036. Yet, although the lines are modeled on [Theocr.] 8.79 – 80, both structurally and thematically, the emphasis on the dionysiac vine is a Vergilian innovation. Last but not least the stress on Dionysus may also account for the antrum with the overrunning vive, chosen as the location for the exchange of songs. Peculiar seems to be in v. 31 the use of the adjective lentus as an attribute to hastas, seeing that the fennel of a thyrsus can by no means be described as pliant37; lentus (vs. the expected durus), however, is a catchword denoting the sensibilities of Callimachean – neoteric poetic suppleness. It also alludes to Verg. Ecl. 1.4: lentus in umbra, a programmatic line compressing the highest value of pastoral, the enjoyment of bucolic song (always of a neoteric – Callimachean quality) in the coolness of an idyllic landscape. Hence 5.31 may be read, as is often the case in the corpus of the Vergilian eclogues, as calling attention to the Callima7.21 – 2, Nemes. 1.68, 2.55. See also Fey-Wickert 2002, 87 – 8. Other Italian deities associated somehow with Pan and thus appearing in Roman pastoral include both Faunus (cf. Verg. Ecl. 6.27 – 8, Calp. 1.9 ff., 2.13, 4.61, 5.26, Eins. 1.9 – 10, Nemes. 1.14, 66 – 7, 3.25) and Silvanus (cf. Verg. Ecl. 10.24 – 5, Calp. 2.28, Nemes. 2.56), cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 67 – 8, 80. 35 Cf. Hunter 1999, 62, 74. 36 Cf. Perret 1961, 61, Clausen 1994, 163. 37 Cf. here Coleman’s relevant comments, Coleman 1977, 161: ‘a strange description’, ‘the combination with lentas rather than duras is in the nature of an oxymoron’.

Mopsus’ Performance

161

chean – neoteric qualities of pastoral song. To the same direction may also point a further demonstrably Callimachean – neoteric catchword, namely mollis in mollibus follis, functioning as an ablative of means governed by intexere, a further well-known terminus technicus, especially in Roman poetry, for denoting the process of poetic production, cf. also Bachyl. Epin. 5.9 – 10, Theocr. 1.52, Verg. Ecl. 10.7138. Accordingly, Daphnis / Bacchus is presented as introducing a species of thyrsus, a poetic symbolism easy to decipher39 (cf. also Lucr. 1.923, Prop. 2.30b.38), crucially possessing qualities expressed by means of well-known poetological slogans demarcating pastoral song of the neoteric kind. The meta–poetic reading of the passage may be further backed up by the very image of Daphnis / Bacchus yoking the Armenian tigers (vv. 29 – 30); this yoking imagery seems to have poetological undertones as alluding in all probability to Damagetus’ epigram on Orpheus (A.P. 7.9.5 – 6) 40. Orpheus, just like Daphnis of the fifth Vergilian eclogue, is hereby presented as introducing bacchic rites; yet more importantly these bacchic endeavours of the poetic god are further complemented with the image of the birth of epic poetry figuratively presented as yoked to heroic foot41. Poetic undertones of the neoteric kind also surface in the description of the ‘anti–pastoral flowering’ in vv. 36 – 9. The violets which cease to sprout are described as mollis (v. 38), that is by means of the well–known poetological motto, denoting the slender Muse of neoteric – Callimachean sensibilities, whereas all other deleterious weeds and plants that spring up, as the result of Daphnis’ death, possess the very opposite qualities (v. 39: carduus et spinis surgit paliurus acutis). Daphnis is thus described by means of neoteric slogans, whereas his death is linked with situations involving anti–neoteric ideas and catchwords; the archetypical pastoral singer incarnates neoteric meta–poetics, cancelled because of his death42. Furthermore, the natural upheaval caused by Daphnis’ demise 38 Cf. Hunter 1999, 83. 39 Cf. Berg 1974, 125. One should make clear here that it is certainly understood that Daphnis in Verg. Ecl. 5 plays the part of a cultural hero; yet, in terms of the reading above, he can also function as a figure of ‘pastoral’, although he may be far more than that. 40 Cf. Schmidt 1972, 204, Berg 1974, 125, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 96 – 7. 41 Cf. Berg 1974, 125 – 6. The scholar thus claims that ‘the ‘chariot’ and the ‘Armenian tigers’ might symbolise a special type or genre of poetic composition’. 42 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 233, who, noting a similarity between Verg. Ecl. 5.36 – 9 and 2.45 – 50 (as to viola and narcissus), also speaks about a ‘suppres-

162

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

is stylistically marked by a conscious syntactic solecism: the use of hordea in a singular sense in v. 36: grandia saepe quibus mandavimus hordea sulcis, censured by Quintilian 1.5.16 as a barbarism43. This solecism may add, on a linguistic level, to the elimination of neoteric qualities, as further suggested by the concentrated allusive use of central neoteric / anti–neotetic ideas and catchphrases; the poet is thus presented as unable to maintain the refined urbanitas of neoteric speech. The overturning of pastoral values in the bucolic community of Mopsus’ song is thus signaled by anti–neoteric linguistic options marking Mopsus’ text. A further distinct pastoral ‘generic marker’ is the so–called ‘pathetic fallacy’, that is the depiction of nature’s sympathetic reaction to specific human situations, especially to the loss of a pastoral hero (cf. also introduction, pp. 16, 23 – 4, 28 – 9). This motif appears already in the first programmatic Theocritean idyll, namely in vv. 71 – 5, where both wild ( jackal, wolf, lion) and tame (steer, bull, heifer, calf) animals mourn for Daphnis’, i. e., the archetypical pastoral singer’s, sufferings. The same also holds true for the fourth bucolic idyll, 4.12 – 6, where the absence of Aegon, modeled on Daphnis, is also mourned by heifers, up to a point exhibiting symptoms associated with human eros (lack of appetite, weight loss, relieving of the pangs of love through the therapeutic healing powers of song) 44. The sympathetic reaction of animals to the loss (death or absence) is bequeathed to post–Theocritean pastoral, cf. E.B. 23 – 4, 31 – 5, where the cattle laments, in a similar way, Bion’s death by refraining from eating, while nature becomes infertile because of the latter’s loss, see also E.A. 32 – 645. Vergil himself represents nature as grieving for Gallus, notably identified with dying Daphnis in Ecl. 10.14 – 6, i. e., in a further poetological bucolic poem, which explores the ‘generic boundaries’ between elegy and pastoral: the elegist Gallus is presented as ‘generically deviating’ towards pastoral, and is thus singled out as a new Daphnis. Gallus is presented as aiming to become a pastoral poet; thus his wasting away deserves the sympathy of nature in the same way as Daphnis’ does. Another instance of the pathetic fallacy has been persuasively analysed sion of the sensual-formalistic voice which composes the bucolic world’ (the translation from Modern Greek is mine), caused by Daphnis’ death. 43 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 163. 44 Cf. Hunter 1999, 89, 134. 45 Cf. also Perret 1961, 60, Hubbard 1998, 90. See also Nemes. 1.64 – 74, 2.29 – 32, Fey-Wickert 2002, 64.

Mopsus’ Performance

163

by Hunter 1999, 89: in his first eclogue, in vv. 38 – 9, Vergil has Meliboeus acknowledge, although mockingly, the ‘generic character’ of the phenomenon. The pathetic reaction of nature to Daphnis’ death is also present in Verg. Ecl. 5.24 – 8. Preserving the basic Theocritean formalistic division between wild and tame animals, although inversing the order of their appearance in the narrative (domestic livestock precede wild animals) 46, Mopsus presents steers which deny the cool streams (vv. 24 – 5: non ulli pastos illis egere diebus frigida, Daphni, boves ad flumina) and various four–footed beasts of the pastoral landscape, which avoid the brook or the grass of their pasture (vv. 25 – 6: nulla neque amnem libavit quadrupes nec graminis attigit herbam), an image chiefly alluding to a similar post–Theocritean formulation of the sulp\heia t_m fkym motif in E.B. 20 – 447. One should note here the uncommon elision of –e in neque before the final spondee of the hexameter, amnem; this is the only instance in the eclogues48, and thus may be read as a further formalistic marking of the disruption of pastoral life and of the metrical poetics of the bucolic genre. Last but not least, Daphnis’ death is also mourned by the African lions, cf. vv. 27 – 8: tuum Poenos etiam ingemuisse leones interitum, where Vergil seems to correct, like the Alexandrian–type scholar he is, Theocritus’ Sicilian lions (Id. 1.72)49. The news of the mourning lions is conveyed by wild mountains and woods (v. 28: montesque feri silvaeque loquuntur), a detail that does not appear in the first Theocritean idyll, but seems to be borrowed from the also programmatic seventh idyll, vv. 72 ff., where the mountains also mourn for Daphnis’ (erotic) sufferings. Yet this motif, inanimate nature grieving over the death of a singer, is crucially found mainly in the later bucolic tradition, cf. E.B. 1 – 7, E.A. 31 ff.50. By incorporating this detail, Mopsus significantly adds in his narrative a further basic generic topic of the pastoral genre: the open, communicative relationship be46 Du Quesnay (1976 – 7)–1999, 352. For this Theocritean division in post-Vergilian pastoral, see also Calp. 2.10: omne genus pecudum, genus omne ferarum, and chapter 6, p. 217. For Theocr. 1 as the main intertext of the pathetic fallacy instance in Verg. Ecl. 5, cf. also Nauta 2006, 327. 47 Cf. Coleman 1977, 160. See also Van Sickle 1978, 140, Rudd 1996, 62. 48 Cf. Soubiran 1966, 116, Clausen 1994, 160. 49 For a criticism of Theocritus’ potential mistake, cf. Hunter 1999, 90. See also Cartault 1897, 173, Lipka 2001, 44. 50 Cf. Perret 1961, 61, Clausen 1994, 161.

164

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

tween man and inanimate nature, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 8.2251. Yet the formulation of the topic also betrays its rather post–Theocritean history (emphasis on the inanimate mournful nature) and helps us further understand the way Mopsus makes use of the pathetic fallacy generic motif: Mopsus uses a Theocritean primary model, but stands critically against the bucolic poet par excellence, correcting his inaccuracies and using additional alternatives of the main motif, found not only in other Theocritean programmatic idylls but also in the pastoral production after Theocritus. This is how Mopsus ‘reads’ the accumulated pastoral poetic tradition that is in his disposition. What is more, the Lucretian formulation of the line, modeled on Lucr. 5.201: montes silvaeque ferarum 52, may be understood as pointing to the Lucretian influence on the Roman genus tenue and Roman pastoral in particular, as thoroughly elaborated in the introduction, cf. pp. 32 – 3; see also pp. 72, 85, 150. The locus amoenus constitutes a further ‘generic marker’ of pastoral (cf. also introduction, pp. 16, 24, 29, 40, 45, 49). In spite of its occurrence in several poetic genres53, the construction of a locus amoenus lies at the heart of pastoral, especially as the location against which is set the interplay, often of emotional colour, between humans and nature54. Thus a generic locus amoenus appears in both programmatic Theocritean idylls, namely 1.1 – 2, 21 – 3, 106 – 7 and, more importantly, 7.135 – 47, which contains the most elaborated idyllic landscape of Theocritean pastoral. The Cyclops also resorts to the construction of a locus amoenus, cf. Id. 11.45 – 8, hoping to entice Galatea to come out, see also Id. 5.32 – 4, 45 – 9, 60 – 1, [Theocr.] 9.9 – 11. What is more, Vergil also acknowledges the ‘generic character’ of the pastoral locus amoenus, when in Ecl. 1, mainly in vv. 51 – 8, the poet shows Meliboeus as pitying himself for the loss of all pastoral delights, which, on the contrary, are reserved for Tityrus55, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 6.54, 7.1, 12 – 3, 45 – 6, 10.40 – 2, Calp. 1.9 – 12, 2.5, 12, 57 – 9, 3.14 – 6, 27, 4.2, 5.2, 6.61 – 2, Nemes. 1.30 – 1, 2.18, 4.46 – 856. This ideal bucolic landscape is, as already pointed out in the introduction, cf. p. 16, characterised mainly 51 52 53 54 55 56

See also Papanghelis 1995, 90 – 1. Cf. also Lipka 2001, 73. Cf. Schönbeck, 1962. Cf. Hunter 1999, 13 – 4. Cf. also Hunter 1999, 193. Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 59 – 60.

Mopsus’ Performance

165

by its cool waters, a shadow secured by pastoral trees (oaks, galingales, elms, hazels, poplars, etc.) and finally the sounds of birds, insects or nature in general, either individually presented or en masse. Although in Mopsus’ song there is no mention of nature’s pleasant sounds, the impression of a pastoral idyllic landscape is clearly obtained through the emphasis on cool water (v. 21: flumina, v. 25: frigida…ad flumina, amnem) and the presence of shadowy trees (v. 21: coryli, for its shadowy properties see also v. 3). It is within this idyllic location that nature, emotionally charged, empathises with Daphnis’ loss. Mopsus’ song ends with Daphnis’ morituri mandata, a basic topos of the epicedion, the literary category to which the song under question does also seem to belong. The dying Daphnis asks, v. 40: spargite humum follis, inducite fontibus umbras. A comparison with the ninth Vergilian eclogue shows that this line is also a variant quotation from a song by Menalcas, the best pastoral singer of the closed bucolic word in the ninth eclogue, vv. 19 – 2057: quis caneret Nymphas? quis humum florentibus herbis / spargeret aut viridi fontis induceret umbra?. Menalcas is here presented as a poeta creator, that is a poet who actually accomplishes whatever he sings about58. DServius comments ad 9.20: id est aspersam floribus caneret. Thus ‘who would cover the soil with blooming herbs, who would clothe the springs with dark green shadow?’ is equal to ‘who would sing about the covering of the soil with blooming herbs, the clothing of springs with dark green shadow’. Accordingly, Daphnis’ request in the fifth eclogue may not be read as an actual exhortation for strewing the lawn with petals or covering the spring with shade; it may be read instead as asking from his listeners, who are shepherds (v. 41: pastores), to sing about covering the turf with petals and about shadow springs. In other words, he calls for the continuation of pastoral song, asking from his shepherds to function themselves as shepherds / poets after his death, the death of the archetypical shepherd / poet. The very presence of the umbra (= shadow), a fundamental generic topos, i. e., the location par excellence for pastoral ‘convening’ (term as used by Alpers, cf. also Alpers 1986, 49 and introduction, p. 18) with the intention of producing bucolic song, may further support a reading of Daphnis’ last words as the exemplary pastoral singer’s last wish for the prolongation of the bucolic genus. 57 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 306, Meban 2009, 111. 58 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 207.

166

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

Daphnis’ second request relates to the erection of his tomb, with emphasis given on the verse inscribed on it, i. e., the sepulchral epigram (a case of textuality within textuality, since the inscription is described within an inscribed text59). The epigram underlines both Daphnis’ pastoral identity (vv. 43 – 4: Daphnis ego in silvis, hinc usque ad sidera notus / formosi pecoris custos) on the analogy of his main intertext, Daphnis in the first Theocritean idyll, 1.120 – 160, and his extreme beauty (v. 44: formosior ipse), a detail which is absent from the Theocritean model61. Yet this last addition points to a post–Theocritean reworking of Theocritus’ Daphnis, Adonis of E.A. 1 ff., cf. also [Theocr.] 8.72 – 362. The association of these two generic pastoral figures in Mopsus’ song is another indication of the ‘accumulated generic experience’ that Mopsus’ pastoral ‘reading’ displays. What is more, this emphasis on Daphnis’ beauty may further be read as reinforcing the neoteric sensibilities of Daphnis as the pastoral poet par excellence. Papanghelis 1991, 383 – 4 has suggested that the adjective possesses, at least as early as Catullus (c.86), neoteric associations with Callimachus’ slender Muse; Lesbia–formosa is characterised by purely Callimachean poetic attributes, cf. also p. 75. Likewise, Daphnis’ formositas may allude to his neoteric – Callimachean poetic qualities as a pastoral singer of the genus tenue. An additional feature requiring interpretation within a poetological reading of the passage is the Vergilian addition of v. 43: hinc usque ad sidera notus, also not found in the Theocritean model63, with notus as a ‘self–reflexive’ intertextual marker to the late Daphnis, already famous from previous texts. It has long been pointed out that this half–verse is modeled on Od. 9.19 – 20, where Odysseus reveals his identity64. Yet it is also a variation of the ‘heaven–high fame’ topos used of poetic success, cf. Theocr. 7.9365. Therefore, Daphnis, modeled on both the Theocritean Daphnis and the post–Theocritean Adonis, professes his status both as a shepherd (formosi pecoris custos, v. 44) and as a poet, although allusively. At the same time, the connection of Daphnis with Odysseus too, a heroic and political fig59 Cf. Breed 2006, 62, 2006b, 94. 60 For the Theocritean intertext, see also Breed 2006, 63 – 4, 130, 2006a, 362, 2006b, 95. 61 Cf. Du Quesnay (1976 – 7)–1999, 357. 62 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 165. 63 Cf. Garson 1971, 198, Lipka 2001, 45. 64 Cf. mainly Hubbard 1998, 90 – 1, Breed 2006, 69, Saunders 2008, 23. 65 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 165, Hunter 1999, 179, Saunders 2008, 23, 155 and n.33.

Mopsus’ Performance

167

ure, may look forward to the political associations of Menalcas’ Daphnis, who is to follow. Although eros lies at the heart of all major bucolic idylls of the Theocritean corpus, yet, as already observed (cf. introduction, pp. 19, 31 – 2; see also p. 102), it is this very eros that markedly stands in sharp opposition to a major bucolic good, i. e., "suw_a, and thus accounts for the disruption of pastoral realistic engagements (herding, reaping) and bucolic pleasures (e. g. syrinx-playing). Daphnis of the first Theocritean idyll, the archetypical pastoral singer, wastes away because of the disease of eros; in the also programmatic seventh idyll (vv. 122 – 7) Simichidas / Theocritus urges Aratus to pursue the bucolic "suw_a by abandoning Philinos. In post–Theocritean pastoral as well this distinction between erotic and bucolic poetry is also evident in programmatic pieces like Bion fr. 10 and 13 (see introduction, p. 25)66. Unhappy love stories also function within Vergilian pastoral as ‘generically destabilising factors’; as has long been established in previous scholarship, cf. also pp. 31 – 2, Vergil often experiments with the ‘generic boundaries’ of his pastoral love-affairs, which in their turn often elaborate on the dialectics between elegy and pastoral as distinct literary genres (mainly Ecl. 2, 3, 8, 10). Thus Daphnis’ lack of erotic undertones67, in the case of Mopsus’ song, may be seen as a conscious ‘reading’ on Mopsus’ part of the generically ‘unpastoral’ or at least the generically ‘undecided’ character of eros, as suggested by its elimination from the younger herdsman’s poetic production. The reception of Mopsus’ song by Menalcas associates it with pastoral pleasures par excellence; a nap on the grass for a tired man, cool water for a thirsty man in hot summer (vv. 45 – 7). The pleasure Menalcas derives from Mopsus’ presentation is thus reflected in the pleasures of the idyllic landscape of the simile; and such interplay is a further well–known topos of pastoral68. Crucially, the pastoral pleasures to which Mopsus’ song is equated are described by means of the famous motto of Callimachean and neoteric poetics, sweetness69 (v. 47: dulcis, cf. also Call. Aet. 1.11 Pf., Theocr. 1.1, 65, 145, 148). 66 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 40 who, however, goes so far as to suggest that ‘Bion [is] declaring himself to be a love poet rather than a Theocritean pastoralist’. 67 Cf. also Klinger 1967, 93, Coleman 1975a, 150, Rudd 1996, 62, Effe – Binder 2001, 192. 68 Cf. Hunter 1999, 70. 69 For the passage alluding to the sweetness of the spring’s sounds in the first Theocritean idyll, vv. 7 – 8, see Posch 1969, 21, Coleman 1977, 165, Clausen 1994,

168

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

Menalcas’ Performance After Menalcas’ approving comments on Mopsus’ performance, the elder herdsman starts his own poetic account of a deified Daphnis; Mopsus has not heard this song before, although he knows of it, because of his master’s, Stimichon’s, praising remarks, (vv. 54 – 5) 70. Menalcas’ Daphnis is deified by means of a typical consecratio (v. 64: deus, deus ille, Menalca!), a traditional appeal to his benevolence as a god (v. 65: sis bonus o felixque tuis!) and a lex templi, comprising altar dedications as well as regular offerings of milk, oil and wine (vv. 65 – 73) 71. The deification motif seems to be the most compelling argument for reading Daphnis, at least Menalcas’ Daphnis, as a poetic symbolism, an allegory for Divus Iulius, deified in January of 42 BC. This point acquires further significance if one takes into account that Daphnis’ apotheosis does not occur in any mythological account of the archetypical herdsman, and may hence be viewed as a conscious invention of Vergil in order to associate his Daphnis with the trendy and much discussed deification of Caesar72. Literary critics, from antiquity onwards (starting from Servius), are willing to detect this allegory in both Mopsus’ and Menalcas’ Daphnis, viewed in this way as a single symbolic figure. Yet the arguments for identifying Mopsus’ Daphnis with Caesar are shaky and quite inconclu165. Hubbard 1998, 91 – 2 sees here an allusion to Catul. 68.57 – 66. If so, the clear neoteric intertext reinforces the neoteric colouring of Menalcas’ reaction to Mopsus’ Callimachean song and does not qualify, as Hubbard loc. cit. remarks, Mopsus’ account as a ‘learned elegy with epicizing touches’ – p. 92. Hubbard 1998, 93 himself acknowledges a neoteric touch in Menalcas’ reaction, when aligning the opening humility of vv. 50 – 2 with Catul. 1.8 – 9, i. e., the dedication of Catullus’ book to Nepos. For sweetness as a quality of pastoral poetry in the post-Vergilian bucolics, thus also adding to the formation of a ‘pastoral generic identity’, cf. also Calp. 2.6, 4.9, 55 – 6, 61, 149 – 50, 160 – 1, 7.20 – 1, Nemes. 1.22, 82, 2.15, 83 – 4, 4.13, Schröder 1991, 79, Fey-Wickert 2002, 60 – 1; see also introduction, pp. 39 – 40, 49. 70 I agree here with Lee 1977, 62 – 3, who argues that Stimichon is Mopsus’ master; for Daphnis as Mopsus’ magister, cf. Coleman 1977, 165, Clausen 1994, 151. Both Clausen 1994, 152 and n.1 and Lee 1977, 65 – 6 have suggested that Mopsus has modeled his lyrics on Menalcas’ song; see also Breed 2006, 58, 2006a, 363, Saunders 2008, 25. 71 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 246 – 9. 72 The relevant account of Servius auctus ad 5.20, according to which Daphnis’ ascension to heaven is associated with his infidelity towards a Nymph, seems to be a scholarly explanation of Vergil’s innovation (i. e., the deification), cf. Du Quesnay (1976 – 7)–1999, 372, 382 and n.78.

Menalcas’ Performance

169

sive; on the contrary, this is not the case with Menalcas’ Daphnis, who seems to be associated with the Roman dictator on a sounder basis73. Within the very narrative of the present eclogue Daphnis is one figure that first dies (Mopsus’ song) and then becomes a divinity (Menalcas’ song); yet in terms of symbolism, it seems that only Menalcas’ Daphis is credited with specific historical qualities and political associations. There are two main arguments for identifying Mopsus’ Daphnis with Julius Caesar. The first relates to vv. 25 – 6, which describe how the four–footed animals refused food, grieving over Daphnis’ death. The lines have been interpreted as an allegory of Caesar’s horses’ denial at Rubicon to eat before the latter’s death, as recorded in Suet. Iul. 81.2: pertinacissime pabulo abstinere ubertimque flere. This reading receives further support from the use of quadrupes in the sense of ‘horse’, frequent in Vergilian epic. Yet, although occurring in the Aeneid as equivalent to equus, quadrupes is by no means restricted to horses, cf. A. 7.500

73 Hubbard 1998, 98 also believes that only in the case of Menalcas’ song can allusion to Caesar be discerned; cf. also Rudd 1996, 63: ‘Nor can we even say that Daphis = Caesar throughout Ecl. 5’. As already pointed out, what primarily leads the reader to associate Daphnis with Caesar is the apotheosis (see further below, pp. 171 – 2), as described in Menalcas’ song. All other signs (cf. pp. 169 ff. of the present chapter), allegedly further pointing to the above association, seem to acquire this particular symbolic meaning only on the basis of the key-deification in Menalcas’ lines. In other words, whereas all other evidence in Mopsus’ lines may be otherwise interpreted, i. e., unrelated to the Caesarian symbolism, the deification can hardly be read as having no bearing on Caesarian allusions. Yet some scholars have denied this allegorical interpretation / identification altogether, cf. Cartault 1897, 178 – 9, Rose 1942, 124 – 38, Büchner 1955 – 8, 1218 – 9, Brisson 1966, 75 – 6, Perret 1982, 216 – 33, Clausen 1994, 152 and n.4 vs. see especially Maury 1944, 133 – 47, Echave-Sustaeta 1980, 115 – 34, Hardie 2006, 291, Nauta 2006, 326. For a Caesarian allusion, although not a complete identification, in the case of Daphnis of the fifth eclogue as a whole, cf. Robertson 1966 – 7, 40 – 1, Leach 1974, 188 – 9, Coleman 1977, 173 – 4, Effe – Binder 1989, 98 – 9; see also Glei 1991, 52 – 3, Baudy 1993, 314 – 5, Rudd 1996, 63 – 4. For a not so compelling identification of Daphnis with Octavian on the other hand, cf. Pulbrook 1978, 31 – 40; for an overview of the various allegorical interpretations of Daphnis ( Julius Caesar, Vergil’s brother – Flaccus, Pollio’s son – Saloninus, Catullus, Varus), see Mayer 1983, 21, Effe – Binder 1989, 97 – 8. This allegorical interpretation has also puzzled ancient commentators, who debated as to whether or not Daphnis should be read as Julius Caesar per allegoriam; cf. Serv. ad 5.20, 29, 34, 44, 54, 65 and Serv. auct. ad 5.56; see also Baudy 1993, 311 and n.97.

170

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

(quadripes) of a stag74. The word also denotes four–footed, four–legged creatures in general (cf. Ter. Andr. 865, OLD 1) and is thus used here of the animals mourning over Daphnis’ demise. Therefore, it constitutes just another instance of pathetic fallacy, and, what is more, of the subtype whereby the pathetic reaction of the animals consists in abstinence from food or drink, cf. Theocr. 4.14, [Moschus] 3.23 – 4, Calp. 2.18 – 9, Nemes. 2.29 – 3275 ; it is thus not at all necessary to interpret it as relating to Suetonius’ description. The second argument in favour of reading Mopsus’ Daphnis as Caesar is based on v. 29, where Daphnis is presented as yoking Armenian tigers to the chariot. Servius ad loc. comments: hoc aperte ad Caesarem pertinet, quem constat primum sacra Liberi patris transtulisse Romam. The statement however is patently misleading, as the introduction of either the Liberalia and / or private bacchic cult in Rome cannot be attributed to Caesar76. Furthermore Du Quesnay’s attempt (1976 – 7)–1999, 376 – 7 to associate Dionysus and the Indian triumph with the Roman triumphatores and with Caesar as such (46, 45 BC) 77 requires the admission of several presuppositions which are not necessarily true. Caesar was just one of the many Roman triumphant generals (Marius, Pompeius) to have introduced bacchic features in their triumphal processions, and thus one is not justified in associating only Divus Iulius to this practice, let alone in crediting him with its invention78 ; in addition, whereas the dionysiac character of their triumph is explicitly acknowledged in the case of other Roman generals (Pompeius, Marius, cf. Plin. Nat. 7.95, 33.150), for Caesar it is only a matter of speculation79. 74 Cf. Perret 1961, 60, Coleman 1977, 160. See also Hubbard 1998, 90, who also understands here quadrupes as horse. 75 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 71 – 2. 76 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 174. 77 Cf. also Drew 1922, 60 – 1. 78 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 97 – 8 and n.99. 79 For Daphnis’ tomb as a further allusion to Caesar, namely to his monument in the forum, built short after his assassination, cf. also Drew 1922, 59 – 62, Leach 1974, 188; but this is a vague detail again, which need not refer to Caesar in particular. Based on the relevant comments by Servius, several scholars have often tried to accommodate, without any solid foundation, several aspects of Mopsus’ song to the Caesarian theory. The reading of the agricultural images in Mopsus’ account as hinting to Caesar’s relationship to Italy, the association of the mater dolorosa scene with Venus mourning over her dead son, and the interpretation of the groaning Punic lions as an allusion to Caesar’s patronage of Carthage (see Leach 1974, 188 – 9, Drew 1922, 57 – 64) are cases in point.

Menalcas’ Performance

171

The Caesarian undertones in Menalcas’ song seem, on the other hand, to be more obvious and convincing; apart from the deification–catasterism per se, which is a sound reason for this identification, two further textual hints may reinforce the Caesarian reading of Menalcas’ Daphnis. In v. 57, in the rpeqouq\mior t|por80, the deified Daphnis beholds, upon his entrance in the realm of gods, the clouds beneath his feet, sub pedibusque videt nubes. The ascension to heaven is often associated with political personalities, namely Hellenistic leaders (syt/qer, eqeqc´ter – characterisations often applied to Caesar81), and crucially enough in Suet. Iul. 81.3 one reads: ipse sibi visus est per quietem interdum supra nubes volitare of Caesar’s dream the night before his assassination. The Vergilian ‘addition’ in relation to the Suetonian fragment, et sidera, may further point to the deified Caesar; after his assassination in July of 44 BC, the appearance of a comet during the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris was widely interpreted as the soul of the god Caesar82. That is why Caesar is associated with stars to such an extent that coins and statues of the period depict him with a star on his head, cf. Suet. Iul. 8883. Similarly, the association of Menalcan Daphnis’ cult with Apollo’s (cf. v. 66), unlike Mopsus’ Daphnis, who is mainly linked to Dionysus, reinforces Menalcas’ Daphnis’ apolline characteristics and brings him closer to the alleged apolline origin of the Iulia gens (note Caesar’s birthday close to Ludi Apollinares 84). The apolline connection becomes clearer if one takes into account the Theocritean lines, Id. 26.5 – 6, that Vergil uses as a model for vv. 65 – 6, where Daphnis is closely associated with Apollo: whereas in the Theocritean intertext the emphasis is given on Dionysus (nine altars are offered to Dionysus and three to his mother Semele), Vergil eliminates the dionysiac references and substitutes them with apolline altars and those devoted to Daphnis85. Daphnis thus re80 81 82 83 84

Cf. Dönt 1981, 136. For this comment, cf. Papanghelis 1995, 246. Cf. Klinger 1967, 96 – 9. Cf. Weinstock 1971, 375 – 84. Cf. also Perret 1961, 65, Hubbard 1998, 98 and n.100. Grimal 1948, 406 – 19 moves on to identify the festivals mentioned in Menalcas’ account with specific Roman religious events, namely the Ludi Apollinares following Caesar’s birthday, the festival held in honour of Caesar’s divinity after January 42, the Vinalia Priora or the Cerealia and finally the Fontanalia. 85 Cf. also Lipka 2001, 45. For the fact that the altars offered to Daphnis and Apollo respectively may not be of the same quality, with Phoebus being given ‘grander and more conspicuous’ altaria, cf. both Servius and DServius ad 5.66; see, however, Kraggerud 2006, 35 – 8. Yet, what matters in my reading

172

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

sembles the divine iuvenis of the first eclogue (Octavian)86, whose apolline features also testify to his identity, cf. also pp. 176 – 7. This deified Daphnis is granted the ability to restore pastoral order / ‘rural prosperity’87, which had been disrupted by Daphnis’ death, as clearly suggested in Mopsus’ song. An idyllic landscape, friendly to its inhabitants, i. e., a fundamental ‘generic feature’ of pastoral88, is restored in vv. 60 – 4. This is also the case with the supreme value of the pastoral community, i. e., bucolic song, as evidenced by the song of groves and rocks, vv. 63 – 4, as well as by the singing performance of Damoetas and Aegon and the dance of Alphesiboeus, imitating the eqwgsir of the Satyrs, vv. 72 – 3. Satyrs are closely associated with the pastoral pantheon, as companions of Bacchus, Pan and the Nymphs (cf. Lucr. 4.580 – 5, Hor. Carm. 2.19.1 – 4, Epist. 1.19.3 – 4, Coleman 1977, 169). Therefore, they too have their distinct place in pastoral as a genre from Theocritus onwards, cf. Theocr. 4.62 – 3 and [Moschus] 3.27 – 8, where Satyrs appear (in yet another instantiation of the pathetic fallacy motif) in the company of Priaps and Pans, two further distinct generic deities of pastoral89, see also [Theocr.] 27.3. What is more, their association with the Nymphs and the dionysiac thiasos makes them a suitable company for a (pastoral) poet90. Musical performance / singing combined with dance, as here, is a further pastoral motif. Theocr. 6.44 – 5 describes a scene where in response to the piping of two herdsmen, Damoitas and Daphnis, the heifers dance on the soft grass, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 6.27 – 8, Calp. 4.66 – 7. Thus the Satyr’s dance played off against the song of two herdsmen (a further pastoral topos, cf. also Theocr. 7.71 – 2, where a duet of pastoral performers does also appear), Damoetas and

86 87 88 89

90

is the ritual association of Apollo with Daphnis, irrespective of issues of religious hierarchy. Paschalis 1994, 440 – 1 detects in the adjective intonsus of v. 63: intonsi montes an allusion to Apollo as !jeqsej|lgr, further emphasising the apolline colouring of Menalcas’ song. Cf. also Papanghelis 2006, 376 – 7, Nauta 2006, 326, Saunders 2008, 26. Cf. Papanghelis 2006, 385; see also Paschalis 1994, 439 – 40, Thome 2000, 102. Cf. Edquist 1975, 19 – 32, Perutelli 1976, 763 – 75, Segal 1981, 215 – 27, Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 145 – 6. Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 68. Note that Tityrus, that is the programmatic figure of the Vergilian pastoral (vs. Corydon of the Calpurnian bucolics for example), is a name of Silenus-like figures that form the company of Dionysus or Pan, cf. Hunter 2006, 129 and n.46; see also Fantuzzi 2006, 251. Cf. also Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 14. See also Calp. 2.13, Nemes. 3.25. Levi 1998, 56 reads in the image of the Satyrs (Verg. Ecl. 5.73) an oblique reference to the Fratres Arvales and their annual triumphing rustic dance in Rome.

Menalcas’ Performance

173

Aegon, formally marks this reinstatement of a pastoral stability. It may also not be without significance that vv. 66 – 73 (containing references to Daphnis, the wine–drinking motif, and the duet of the pastoral singers) seem to be modeled on Theocritus’ 7.69 – 7291. In this passage, Theocritus’ programmatic figure, Lycidas, relieved from his ‘unpastoral’ erotic anxiety, avows his pastoral delight in enjoying wine and listening to the piping of two herdsmen who accompany Tityrus’ song on Daphnis and Comatas, figures credited with the founding of the pastoral genre. The clear ‘programmatic / generic undertones’ of the Theocritean intertext regarding pastoral and its origins may thus accumulatively reinforce the meta–poetic reading of Menalcas’ narrative as an account of the construction of pastoral in Roman terms. On a linguistic level, the revival of pastoral is suggested by a conspicuous colloquialism hinting to the rural linguistic idiom characterising, as will be shown in the next chapter, cf. pp. 209 – 11, the diction of Tityrus of the first eclogue and Lycidas of the ninth, who have secured, in opposition to Meliboeus and Moeris respectively, their continuation in the ‘green cabinet’. In v. 66 Menalcas constructs ecce with the accusative, ecce duas tibi, Daphni, duas altaria Phoebo. This is a typically unclassical construction occurring in distinct colloquial sources, namely comedy (cf. Plaut. Cist. 283, Ter. Ad. 995, OLD 1, 2), later Christian authors and grammarians, significantly in Late Latin vulgar texts (Gregory of Tours), cf. ThLL V 2, 26, 15 ff.92. This linguistic realism is notably absent from Mopsus’ account of Daphnis’ death but crops up in Menalcas’ account to mark the ‘pastoral rebirth’ on a stylistic level as well. The image of a Golden Age in vv. 58 – 64 also suggests this revival of neoteric pastoral song; Papanghelis 1995, 270 – 88 has pertinently suggested, mainly in the case of the messianic fourth eclogue, a poetological association of that Age with ‘New Poetry’, with a formalistic revival of neoteric song in its neoteric purity (see also previous chapter, cf. pp. 143 – 4). The neoteric reading of Daphnis can also be supported through the appearance of catchwords of neoteric sensibilities scattered throughout Menalcas’ song; firstly, as Papanghelis again 1995, 237 has remarked, Daphnis’ clear preference for otium, v. 61: amat bonus otia Daphnis. Otium is a vital prerequisite for composing neoteric poetry, as both the precondition and the reflection of that poetry, the otium po91 Cf. Lipka 2001, 45 – 6, Hubbard 1998, 94 – 5. 92 Cf. also Lipka 2001, 139 – 40.

174

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

eticum 93, and is linked with neoteric writing as well as the neoteric way of life, in opposition to the gravitas exhibited by the genus grande94. Another signpost of the poetological analysis occurs in v. 56, where we read that Daphnis candidus marvels at heaven’s insuetum threshold. Both candidus and insuetum may be read as markers of neoteric preferences; although suggesting here, at least on a first level, the radiant qualities of the new god, candidus also possesses, in poetry of the neoteric cycle and especially in Catullus, clear undertones of neoteric qualities95. The same can also be argued for the insuetum threshold of Olympus that Daphnis marvels at. The word denotes of course Daphnis’ lack of familiarity (being a new god) with Olympus as well as his extraordinary experience, i. e., his deification, but at the same time seems to suggest here the notion of ‘uncommon’, ‘unfamiliar’, ‘unusual’, also evoked by the %tqiptor j´keuhor to which Callimachean poetry is also compared, cf. Call. Aet. 1.25 – 8 Pf. and especially Ep. 28.3 – 4 Pf. (cf. also chapter 1, p. 76). Hence it seems that Menalcas’ Daphnis makes clear his neoteric – Callimachean associations from the very first line of Menalcas’ song, in accordance with the well–known Hellenistic tendency for poets to allude to their poetological orientation from the very beginning of their work. What is more, the clear Lucretian wording of vv. 56 – 7, modeled on Lucr. 3.26 – 796, as suggested by the motif of looking down from Olympus in conjunction with the metrical position of the sub pedibus syntagm97, which is the same in both poets, point again to the neoteric connotations of Menalcas’ Daphnis, given the well–known program-

93 Cf. also Hunter 2006, 130. 94 For otium as symbolising Caesar’s political clemency, which disappeared from Rome in the political riot following his murder, cf. Leach 1974, 191 – 2. Jenkyns 1998, 634 reads the word as ‘not only peace but also security or freedom from interference’ and aligns it with Verg. Ecl. 1.6: deus nobis haec otia fecit, referring to the iuvenis–god, Octavian, of the first eclogue, see also pp. 637 – 8. Cf. also Perret 1961, 64, who sees in otium here a mingling of both poetic and political undertones. 95 As I have tried to show elsewhere, Karakasis 2005a, 102 – 3, candida is a further neoteric key-word, which in Catullan poetry is closely associated with neoteric writing; cf. also chapters 1, 2, pp. 74 – 5, 107. 96 Cf. also Martini 1986, 310 – 2, Hubbard 1998, 95 – 6 and n.96, Saunders 2008, 23 – 4. 97 Cf. also Lipka 2001, 73.

Menalcas’ Performance

175

matic reception of Lucretius in Roman neoteric circles and in Vergilian pastoral of the genus tenue98. A similar approach can be adopted for vv. 76 – 8 as well. Daphnis as a pastoral deity will receive the appropriate annual honours (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.42 – 3), only as long as the boar loves both mountainsides, the fish loves the water, the bees feed on thyme and finally the cicadas live on dew. Bees and cicadas are insects closely associated with poetry and music, carrying Callimachean – neoteric associations and having their place in pastoral poetic tradition. A common image of bees and honey involves poets who are presented as having their mouth full of honey99. They appear in extant Theocritean pastoral, cf. Theocr. 1.106 – 7, 146 – 8, 3.12 – 4, 7.78 – 89 and are also found in Callimachus’ poetological symbolisms; Callimachus’ poetry is like the fresh and pure water that the bees fetch Demeter from a blessed spring, cf. Call. Hymn. 2.112 (cf. also chapter 1, p. 84). Cicadas are also the ‘singers par excellence’, cf. Hunter 1999, 106, appearing in bucolic settings, cf. Theocr. 1.148, 4.15 – 6, 5.28 – 9, 7.138 – 9, where their song usually accompanies the song of the herdsmen or is used as an evaluation standard for the quality of human pastoral song and natural sounds100 ; they also function as a Callimachean poetological symbol, !e¸dolem oT kic»m Gwom t´tticor, h]ºqubom dû oqj 1v¸kgsam emym, Call. Aet. 1.29 – 30 Pf. Thus in the corpus of the Theocritean idylls, cicadas allude to the slender character of Callimachean poetry, thus functioning as a meta–language of Callimachean poetics within the pastoral genre101. While the association of the cicada with a diet consisting of dew drops is common from [Hesiod] onwards (Scut. 393 – 5102) and has constituted the subject of literary discussion in its relation to cicada’s natural song103, the image may also add to the poetological reading of the passage, since Callimachus in the Aetia also depicts his poetry as dew drops falling from the divine air (vv. Aet. 1.33 – 4 Pf., see also chapter 3, p. 131). Hence Daphnis, as a god presiding over both the pastoral world and the pastoral genre, will keep receiving apposite offers (do ut des), only as long as com98 For further Lucretian allusions in v. 20 (Lucr. 6.7), 43, 52 (Lucr. 6.7 – 8), 64 (Lucr. 5.8), cf. also Putnam 1970, 185 – 6, Berg 1974, 128, Hubbard 1998, 95 – 7, Hardie 2006, 291, Saunders 2008, 26. 99 Cf. Waszink 1974, Hunter 1999, 105. 100 Cf. also Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 144. 101 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 58 and n.23. 102 Cf. Hunter 1999, 134 – 5. 103 Cf. Davies – Kathirithamby 1986, 116 – 9, Fantuzzi – Hunter 2004, 143 – 4.

176

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

mon pastoral and Callimachean – neoteric poetological symbolisms alluding to neoteric poetry per se are maintained. This poetological reading is also suggested by Mopsus’ reception of Menalcas’ song. As Papanghelis again 1995, 227 – 8 has remarked, Menalcas’ song is considered as superior to the dash of streams tumbling down from rock–strewn glens, vv. 83 – 4: nec quae saxosas inter decurrunt flumina valles. These sublime manifestations of wild nature bring pleasure, but Menalcas’ breathtaking song delights even more. The image, however, although fashioned on Theocr. 1.7 – 8, may bring to an informed reader’s mind Hor. Carm. 4.2, where the Roman lyric poet, in a similar way, i. e., as a raging torrent, describes Pindar’s verses (vv. 5 ff.) 104. Nevertheless, in a form of a recusatio, Horace declares himself unable to imitate Pindar successfully, proclaiming instead at the same time his adherence to Callimachean poetics, cf. also chapter 1, p. 63. The Callimachean – neoteric quality of ‘new pastoral’ is further evidenced on the metrical level as well; a conspicuous metrical habit of neoteric poetry is its avoidance of the elision. From this perspective Menalcas’ performance seems to be the more neoteric as far as metre is concerned, for, out of 19 in total elisions in the eclogue, only three (vv. 48, 58, 69) are to be found in his lines105. Menalcas’ Daphnis secures the continuation of pastoral song by means of his deification; Daphnis thus becomes a god with political status (Caesar) 106 and clear apolline characteristics, as mentioned above, p. 171. The same attributes (divine features, apolline associations, political allegory) are also discernible in the case of the iuvenis of the first Vergilian eclogue, who also functions as a political god (Octavian) and thus secures the survival of pastoral community. Both these figures (Menalcas’ Daphnis and the iuvenis of the first eclogue) are linked, through their apolline features and because of their role as warrantors of pastoral, with Lycidas of the seventh programmatic Theocritean idyll, another divine or semi–divine figure with clear apolline colouring, 104 Cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 98 – 9 and n.72. Vs. Leach 1974, 195 – 6, who reads the passage (Verg. Ecl. 5.81 – 4) as having heroic / epic undertones. Wild nature imagery, as suggested in these lines, is by no means reserved to the epic genre; furthermore the image of the blowing wind has the sanction of pastoral as well (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 2.58 – 9). 105 Cf. Kowara 1995, 61 – 2, Seng 1999, 26. 106 Cf. also Leach 1974, 194 – 5, who sees in this eclogue a successful blending of pastoral and history, a regeneration of pastoral, a re-evaluation of Tityrus’ otium / libertas in the first eclogue.

Menalcas’ Performance

177

who presides over bucolic song and the bucolic genre in general107. However, on a narratological level, there is a difference between the seventh Theocritean idyll and the fifth Vergilian eclogue: while Lycidas is himself a divine figure possessing power over pastoral, in Vergil Menalcas is not himself the god ensuring pastoral survival; the saviour of pastoral comes instead from the subject of Menalcas’ poetic narrative, i. e., Daphnis. More importantly, whereas Theocritus’ divine figure has no connection with politics, this is not the case with its Vergilian counterparts, which can and have been read as political allegories of Caesar and Augustus respectively; this can be viewed as a further sign of Vergil’s desire to mingle the idyllic, apolitical Theocritean generic pastoral world with the political history of his time, as first and foremost evidenced by both the first and the ninth eclogue108. To push the argument a bit further: Menalcas reveals to the young Mopsus a new pastoral world, where bucolic sensibilities are closely linked with praise, albeit allegorically, of a historical person. For Roman poets it was quite difficult to keep contemporary politics out of their work; this is why they so often resort, especially in the Augustan period, to the recusatio. Pastoral can continue to exist under the protection of a political god; whereas in Theocritus a distinction is made between his bucolic idylls and those praising Hellenistic rulers (with the exception of the debated, yet quite oblique panegyrical allusion to Ptolemy Philadelphos at 7.91 – 3109), in Vergil’s case such a distinction does not hold true any 107 For the relation of the iuvenis in the first eclogue with Lycidas, see also Hunter 1999, 149. For the association of Tityrus’ god in the first Vergilian eclogue with Menalcas’ Daphnis, cf. also Van Sickle 1986, 113 – 4. 108 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 255. 109 Cupaiuolo 1973, 189 – 90, Wright (1983)–1999, 132 – 3, Hunter 1999, 179. It should be noted here however that it is Simichidas, the urban poet representing up to a point the urban world and its values, despite his eventual pastoralisation, who seems to be interested in keeping in touch with his contemporary politics. Other instances of indirect patronage include mainly Id. 3.50 ff., which refers to the Samothracian mysteries, sponsored by Ptolemy Philadelphos and Arsinoe, and Id. 4.31 with Glauke and her close linkage with Ptolemy, cf. also Hunter 1999, 128, 136 – 7, Fantuzzi 1995a, 26 – 7; see also more recently Stephens’ account 2006, 91—117. Nevertheless, these instances are isolated and controversial, without any appreciable panegyric elements, and may in no case be likened to the clearer, encomiastic enough touches of Menalcas’ narrative relating Daphnis’ apotheosis. As Nauta 2006, 301 and n.3 remarks with reference to the Theocritean bucolic corpus: ‘The most explicit panegyrical moment in the poems on herdsmen comes at 7.93, where ‘Zeus’ suggests Ptolemy Philadelphos’.

178

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

longer110, and panegyrical undertones are more easily discerned in Vergilian pastoral. Bucolic pleasure is thus mingled with a eulogy of historical and political persons111. As Hunter 2006, 131 has plausibly remarked in the case of Daphnis’ death, i. e., the subject matter of the programmatic first Theocritean idyll: ‘As the original subject of bucolic song, the death of Daphnis is also, of course, the beginning of a new tradition of poetry’ (the emphasis is mine); in a similar vein the death of a further eminent pastoral figure, namely Mopsus’ Daphnis, may be read as heralding ‘the beginning of a new [Roman] tradition of [pastoral] poetry’, that is a ‘more diversified’ conception of the bucolic genre within the broader context of the Roman ‘intense thinking’ on genre. This ‘new pastoral’ will not focus, as is generally the case with Theocritean bucolics, only on the bucolic life and the musical interests of its characters, but will generically mingle pastoral with georgic ideals (cf. the agricultural loss in vv. 36 – 9), which do not relate to the pastoral countryside and its components but to farm locations and farm practices112. In opposition to the Greek bucolic tradition, Vergil sometimes incorporates in the bucolic settings of his eclogues themes testifying to his increased georgic interests, cf. Ecl. 1.73, 2.70, 3.77, 4.40 – 1, 9.48 – 50, although not to the extent this occurs in Calpurnian pastoral (cf. mainly eclogues 2 and 5) 113. Vergil also often seems to exploit a ‘generic tension’ between the ‘georgic’ and the ‘pastoral ideal’; this is mainly evident, as will be shown in the next chapter, cf. pp. 187, 202 – 5, in the case of the ninth eclogue. Interestingly, this movement of the Vergilian pastoral towards a ‘georgic ideal’, also found in the programmatic first eclogue, is evident once again in the case of Menalcas’ account, namely v. 75: lustrabimus agros; Menalcas’ pastoral resurrection also involves a georgic purification of the land, and, in opposition to the ninth eclogue (as will be demonstrated in the following chapter, pp. 184 ff.), this re–evaluation of pastoral with touches of both encomium and georgics is here presented in very positive colours. 110 Cf. especially Bardon 1972, 1 – 2, 5, 7, 13, Coleman 1975a, 151, Binder 1989, 363 – 4, Paschalis 1996, 139 – 40. See also Rosenmeyer 1969, 122, Vinchesi 1996, 21, Seng 1999, 25. 111 The ‘panegyric outlook’ of Vergilian pastoral has already been noticed by the ancient commentators; see Nauta 2006, 302 – 5. 112 Cf. especially Leach 1974, 96 – 101. 113 Cf. Hubaux 1927, 72 – 89, 97, Rosenmeyer 1969, 24, Kettemann 1977, 107 – 8, Fey-Wickert 2002, 56 – 7.

Closure

179

As a final note: in the perspective of the present analysis, Menalcas’ Daphnis (with all his associations and political allusions) is, by comparison with the archetypical Daphnis of Theocritus’ idyll 1, a kind of ‘evolved’ Daphnis and also a more ‘ambiguous’ (even though also more Roman) bucolic personality. Menalcas’ song is thus not only more Roman but also – and more significantly – more ‘ambiguous’, and it is crucially this ‘ambiguity’ that partly constructs the ‘generic profile’ of the ‘new diversified Roman pastoral’ represented by Menalcas’ song.

Closure The understanding of this eclogue as a statement of meta–poetic character can be furthered through the analysis of the passage describing the mutual exchange of gifts114 (vv. 85 – 90, modeled on Theocr. 6115), appropriate to the attributes of each contestant. Mopsus proved himself a competent ‘reader’ of the previous both Theocritean and later bucolic tradition; thus Menalcas, in a gesture of poetic initiation116, offers Mopsus his reed, by means of which the elder goatherd had performed two of his songs, referred to through their first lines, as was common117. These two songs are the second and the third Vergilian eclogue. It is believed that the eclogues 2, 3 and 5 were the first pastoral compositions of Vergil, with the fifth being chronologically the last118, as it mentions the other two. Menalcas therefore offers young Mopsus, an apprentice in pastoral to some degree, a gift symbolising the continuation of pastoral in Roman terms, up to the composition of the fifth eclogue, so that this pastoral experience may be incorporated in Mopsus’ bucolic readings119. 114 115 116 117 118

For the exchange of pastoral gifts, see especially Rosenmeyer 1969, 161 – 7. Cf. Nauta 2006, 326. Cf. Nauta 2006, 326; see also Schmidt 1972, 223 – 38. Cf. Van Sickle 1978, 213. Cf. also Coleman 1977, 14 – 21, Effe – Binder 1989, 96, Breed 2006, 68, 2006a, 342, 345. 119 Hardie 2006, 284 reads the pipe as ‘a symbol of the bucolic tradition that ‘taught’ Menalcas / Virgil Eclogues 2 and 3’. What is more, the clear Theocritean background of Mopsus’ song in Verg. Ecl. 5, in opposition to Menalcas’ scanty Theocritean references, has led Clausen 1994, 154 – 5 and n.12 to claim that Menalcas’ gesture in giving away his pipe, which helped him compose his ‘notably Theocritean’ eclogues, 2 and 3, suggests the latter’s moving away from his ‘dependence on Theocritus’. On the basis of the Lucretian allu-

180

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

Mopsus, on the other hand, gives Menalcas a crook. In contrast to a similar gift offered by Lycidas to Simichidas in Theocr. 7.43120, cf. also [Theocr.] 9.23 – 4, in the fifth eclogue there is an emphasis on the craftsmanship of the pedum; the crook has even knots and a bronze ring (v. 90). DServius remarks: et ab arte et a natura laudavit: paribus nodis id est natura formosum, atque aere hoc est pulchrum aere artificium. The gift may thus be viewed as the artistic reflection of the poetic quality with which Menalcas’ song is credited, just as the cup of the first Theocritean idyll functions as the artistic version of Thyrsis’ poetic excellence121. The status of the young Mopsus as a pastoral beginner up to a point may also account for Vergil’s choice of this specific name for his herdsman; unlike Menalcas, who has a clear ‘pastoral history’, Mopsus as a name does not occur in pastoral before Vergil (cf. however in epic, A.R. 1.65 – 6, 3.916 – 8) 122. Menalcas as a name, on the other hand, occurs in two pseudotheocritean idylls, namely 8 and 9, as well as in eclogues 2 and 3 of the Vergilian corpus123, chronologically preceding the fifth bucolic, and thus seems more appropriate for an experienced pastoral singer as Menalcas of the present eclogue is presented to be. Pastoral experience is thus reflected on the ‘generic history’ of a significant name. This perspective will be of assistance, when attempting a second analysis of the passage relating to the arboreal inscription of Mopsus’ performance. Although inscribed representations do appear in the pastoral world (e. g. the ‘generic’ ecphrasis of the first Theocritean idyll and the third Vergilian eclogue), tree-inscriptions as a rule do not. Thus, even though an inscribed text (Faunus’ prophecy, scratched on a beech) welcomes the reader of post–Vergilian pastoral, namely

120 121 122 123

sions discerned, Mizera 1982, 371 reads ‘Menalcas’ cicuta as an emblem of Lucretius’ gifts to Vergil, a legacy of his tradition and poetic inspiration’. Saunders 2008, 28 – 9, 81 as well points out the Lucretian undertones of Menalcas’ hemlock reed (cf. Lucr. 5.1382 – 3), whereas Mopsus’ gift is read as an acknowledgment of the poet Menalcas’ ‘growing up’, since his first appearance in the third Vergilian eclogue. For this Theocritean intertext, cf. also Breed 2006, 67, Nauta 2006, 326 – 7 and n.88; see also Klinger 1967, 91. For an erotic involvement between the two pastoral figures of the eclogue, also suggested by the cordiality in the gift-exchange, cf Breed 2006, 67; see also Steinmetz 1968, 120 and Baumbach 2001, 108 – 20. Cf. Coleman 1977, 154, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 95, Clausen 1994, 155. Cf. Coleman 1977, 94, Hubbard 1998, 86 – 7.

Closure

181

Calp. 1124, cf. also Calp. 3.43, Nemes. 1.28 – 9 (a song inscribed on a cherry tree bark), Calp. 3.90 – 1, in Vergil’s pastoral this attitude towards the written text is up to a point a sign of ‘generic transgression’. Vergil’s immediate textual predecessors for the passage in question are non–pastoral sources, namely Callimachus’ elegiac reworking of the Acontius–Cydippe story (cf. Aet. 73 Pf.) and Theocritus’ non–bucolic idyll 18, where Helen is honoured by means of a tree–inscription, vv. 47 – 8125. What is more, when the arboreal inscription theme does appear in the tenth eclogue (vv. 53 – 4), it is clearly associated with the elegiac world and is often seen in the relevant bibliography as a sign of the elegiac world to which Gallus belongs, in spite of his temporary intrusion in the pastoral genre126. It is thus clear that tree-inscriptions, at least up to Vergil, are not a feature of pastoral; it is thus not a coincidence that the inscriptional practice is associated in the present eclogue with the younger, less experienced member of the ‘green cabinet’127, for a song which encompasses the history of the genre so far, while at the same time singing of the death of the archetypical pastoral singer and broadly speaking of (a form of) pastoral. Menalcas, on the other hand, the more experienced character of this bucolic setting and the one to narrate both Daphnis’ apotheosis and the resurrection of pastoral, keeps functioning within the framework of the traditional pastoral orality, which involves both extemporisation and polished, elaborate, though oral song. The poetic labour of Callimachean aestheticism is not absent from Theocritus’ idylls (7.51, 139) or Vergil’s neoteric pastoral (cf. Ecl. 10.1: extremum…laborem) 128 ; it is however mostly associated with the orality of the fictional ‘pastoral space’, despite the dense textuality of pastoral as literary genre. 124 Cf. Slater 1994, 73. 125 Cf. also Breed 2006, 71, 132. 126 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 151 and n.18, who, however, reads both instances of writing (fifth and tenth Vergilian eclogue) as ‘elegiac intrusion into the pastoral domain’. 127 Breed 2006, 67 – 8 does not see a ‘clear differentiation in poetic authority between them’; see also Hubbard 1998, 99. Yet Menalcas is clearly older than Mopsus (v. 4), suggesting, in pastoral terms, accumulated experience absent for the younger herdsman. 128 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 129 and n.165. For the writing motif in Roman pastoral (especially Verg. Ecl. 10) and Callimachus / elegy, cf. also Jacoby 1905, 58 – 9, Putnam 1970, 372 – 4, Coleman 1975a, 149, Conte 1986, 122 – 3, Van Sickle 1986, 179, Papanghelis 1995, 80 – 2, Hubbard 1998, 88, 136 – 7. See also Breed 2006, 129 – 33.

182

Reviving Pastoral: Vergil and his Fifth Bucolic

Poetic Initiation Settings After having examined the ways Mopsus’ song accumulates in his narrative several traditional patters of Theocritean and post–Theocritean pastoral, up to a point contrasting with Menalcas’ performance which suggests a new type of Roman pastoral, where the urbs and its associations, a deified political figure, guarantee the continuation of the bucolic song, it has become easier to tackle the second aim of this chapter, the reading of the eclogue not only as a kind of poetic succession but also as an epiphany of the Hesiodic kind. This has already been suggested by the initial remarks on the exchange of gifts, mainly the goatherd’s crook, as well as the choice of a cave as the setting for this song exchange, cf. pp. 154 – 5. Wright (1983)–1999, 127 – 8 has isolated six motifs constituting a typology of poetic initiation scenes, based mainly on Hes. Th. 22 ff., Call. Aet. 1.21 – 4 Pf., 2.1 – 2 Pf., Theocr. 7.91 ff., Verg. Ecl. 1; all these features appear, mutatis mutandis, in the present eclogue as well. More specifically, the initiation typology includes the following: 1.) An encounter with deities associated with poetic inspiration or the gift of prophecy. Although no direct meeting of a herdsman with a god or goddess occurs here, there is a clear reference to a deity in Menalcas’ song, significantly performed within an encounter scene between two herdsmen, Mopsus as the recipient of the ‘poetic revelation’ and Menalcas as the figure revealing ‘new pastoral’ associated with the catasterism of a political man, the epiphany of a god. Thus although not physically present, Daphnis appears as a deity in Menalcas’ narrative and is associated, as suggested above, p. 171, mainly with Apollo (vv. 65 – 6), a well–known poetic deity, present in the classical poetic investiture scene of Callimachus’ Aet. 1.21 – 4 Pf., also imitated by Vergil at the beginning of the sixth eclogue. Bacchic elements are also not absent from Daphnis’ divine image (vv. 79 – 80: ut Baccho Cererique, tibi sic vota quotannis agricolae facient), thus associating him with one more poetic deity especially connected with the bucolic genre. 2.) A setting closely associated with a god. As already suggested the cave, the scene of the song exchange in the present eclogue, is closely linked with poetic inspiration and, furthermore, has clear affinities with both Bacchus and the Nymphs, i. e., key-members of the bucolic pantheon.

Conclusion

183

3.) Direct or indirect references to the rustic identity of the poet. Both poets are traditional herdsmen, and this is clearly acknowledged in v. 12, where a third pastoral figure, Tityrus, is charged with tending the grazing goats, thus relieving Mopsus and Menalcas of their menial tasks, pascentis servabit Tityrus haedos. 4.) A direct address to the poet in the vocative. Although not coming from Daphnis himself, there are direct addresses in the vocative – Mopse from the very first line of the poem (v. 1, cf. also v. 10), uttered by the mouthpiece of the political god, Menalcas. 5.) Implicit or explicit references to the form of poetic composition to be adopted. According to the present reading, Menalcas’ narrative is ‘self–reflexive’ and concerns the foundation of a new more ‘diversified’ Roman pastoral genre, in which traditional pastoral themes are interspersed with implicit encomiastic references to political figures and overlaid with a georgic colouring in a neoteric outlook. 6.) A word meaning ‘first’ appears somewhere in the narrative. In v. 68 the verb statuere, craterasque duo statuam tibi pinguis olivi, clearly denotes the beginning of a process, i. e., the founding of Daphnis’ cult. The expression can also be viewed as a meta–linguistic reference to the birth of a reformed encomiastic pastoral in Rome.

Conclusion The present eclogue may function as a discourse on the ‘generic re-evaluation’ of Roman pastoral. Mopsus offers an account of central generic topoi of the pastoral genre in the Theocritean and post–Theocritean tradition, ‘read out’ in their textuality and in their association with the neoteric – Callimachean poetological program, as suggested by the accumulative evidence of poetological catchwords. Menalcas, on the other hand, offers a different version of pastoral, still of the Callimachean poetological trend, but adapted especially to Roman terms. Pastoral is no longer a self–absorbed, isolated literary production, but interacts with political society and its benefactors; its continuation is secured by means of this interaction, which entails a mixture of traditional pastoral motifs, encomiastic notes and georgic touches. This ‘new pastoral’ is ‘revealed’ by the older to the younger herdsman in an encounter scene reminiscent, thanks to its typology, of relevant settings of poetic investiture and succession in Hesiod, Callimachus and Theocritus.

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue The song exchange of the ninth eclogue does not take the form of an agonistic singing match, as is the case with eclogues 3 and 7, but is more in the line of a friendly exchange as evidenced by eclogues 5 and 8. But the curious thing about it is that song performance is not viewed, as usually, as a means for pastoral enjoyment during rest; rather, it is set against the negative influence of ‘pastoral dislocation’ and the disruption of bucolic song. Menalcas, the famous local pastoral singer, has been evicted because of land confiscations and thus Moeris, equivalent to Meliboeus of the first eclogue, loses his tenancy on Menalcas’ land1. Lycidas, on the other hand, like Tityrus of the first Vergilian bucolic, is luckier in finding the means to secure his place in the pastoral world; crucially, the member of the ‘green community’ to secure his pastoral continuation is called Lycidas, i. e., bears a distinctively pastoral name, in opposition to Moeris, whose name has no bucolic history whatsoever, no intertextual bucolic pedigree2, although he is depicted as the senior and more experienced herdsman-singer, but only in the closed ‘green cabinet’ of the present eclogue. A polarity is thus developed between these two characters3, who, however, in spite of their dif-

1

2 3

It is not an easy task to reconstruct the status of Moeris in the present eclogue; here I follow the view that Moeris was Menalcas’ tenant and, after Menalcas’ eviction from his land, he tried unsuccessfully to renew his tenancy under the new owner. The kids are thus to be seen as a means for appeasing the soldier in order to change his mind. This alternative makes the situation of Moeris more pathetic, aligns better with an alleged pessimism of the poem and, finally, makes Moeris a counterpart of Meliboeus in the first eclogue, because he, like Moeris, loses contact with the pastoral world. For other views, according to which both Moeris and Menalcas lost their land or Moeris has managed to keep his tenancy under the soldier as the new owner of Menalcas’ land, see Coleman 1977, 256 – 7, Papanghelis 1995, 204 – 5, 2006, 387. Cf. also Stégen 1953, 335 and n.17, Clausen 1994, 266 – 7, Becker 1996, 2, Luther 2002, 39, Loupiac 2006, 146, Saunders 2008, 95, 100, Meban 2009, 108 and n.20. Cf. also Schmidt 1972a, 99. Cf. also Segal (1965)–1999, 173 – 4, 192 – 3.

The Preliminaries

185

ferent circumstances, are both seen as being infected by the intrusion of history in the pastoral literary landscape4. The aim of this chapter is to examine the ways in which this ‘pastoral upheaval’, as described above, is evident in the ‘generic outlook’ of the songs performed by the two singers. Attention is also drawn to the way language and metre function as a means of expressing ‘pastoral dislocation’ (in the sense described in the introduction, pp. 6 – 7) as well as the polarity between the herdsmen of the eclogue. The analysis is complemented by a similar examination of the relevant situation developed in the first eclogue5.

The Preliminaries The eclogue is clearly modeled on Theocritus’ seventh idyll, as evidenced by the name Lycidas, given to one of the herdsmen of the bucolic, the narrative setting of a conversation during a journey, the intertextual references to the Thalysia, as well as various verbal and motif cross-references6. The poem thus opens with a question by Lycidas – quo te, Moeri, pedes? (sc. ducunt), alluding to a similar expression uttered by the semi-divine figure of idyll 7, v. 217. From this very first line of 4

5

6 7

The eclogue, as is also the case with the first Vergilian bucolic, has often been interpreted as Vergil’s autobiographical note, cf. Cipolla 1962, 48 – 57, Coleiro 1979, 170 – 6, Veyne 1980, 233 – 57; see also Mayer 1983, 19, Glei 1991, 50 and n.31. In any case such an interpretative framework imposes several limitations; cf. also Wilkinson (1966)–1999, especially 42; see, on the other hand, Korenjak 2003, 58 – 79. See also Gawantka 1975, 163 – 76, who also reads the basic pastoral figures of the poem (Menalcas, Moeris and Lycidas) as standing for various periods in Vergil’s life and poetic career. Segal (1965)–1999, 177 – 9 also observes a stylistic difference in the diction of Tityrus and Meliboeus in the first eclogue, with Tityrus’ characterised by ‘syntactical complexity’, ‘rhetorical exaggeration’ and ‘prosaic style’, whereas Meliboeus prefers a rather ‘direct and straightforward’ language. However, this is a passing comment focusing on rather impressionistic linguistic categories, without a specific linguistic theoretical background for the characterisation of the linguistic terms used; the present analysis, on the contrary, focuses chiefly on the linguistic categories of colloquialism and archaism. Cf. also especially Cartault 1897, 376 – 9, Putnam 1970, 335 – 8, Berg 1974, 138 – 42, Neumeister 1975, 177 – 85, Coleman 1977, 273 – 4, Alpers 1979, 136, Thill 1979, 67 – 8, Wright (1983)–1999, 136, Henderson 1998a, 164. Cf. also Schmidt 1972a, 99, Segal 1981, 279, Wright (1983)–1999, 136, Hubbard 1998, 118, Rupprecht 2004, 37 – 8.

186

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

the eclogue, however, there is evidence of an inversion with respect to the Theocritean intertext: whereas in Theocritus this question serves to welcome the urban poet Simichidas in the pastoral world and, by extension, to the bucolic genre, the present eclogue moves, generically speaking, in the exactly opposite direction. Moeris makes his way towards the city (v. 1: an, quo via ducit, in urbem?); this course, inversing the ab urbe movement of the seventh Theocritean idyll and the eighth eclogue8 of Vergil, and hereby viewed in a rather negative light9, is stylistically marked by the harsh rhythm of the line (three spondees) 10. History sets foot in the bucolic world and defiles the pastoral ideals11; this movement away from earlier ‘pastoral purity’ entails, as it will be shown, a ‘generic deviation’ to urban or less pastoral themes and techniques. Whereas the Thalysia become a programmatic piece for the foundation of Greek pastoral, the ninth Vergilian eclogue functions as a manifesto for the ‘deconstruction’ of the Greek pastoral genre in Roman terms. In other words, this eclogue can also be seen as a statement on Roman pastoral as a genre, at least as probably viewed by Vergil at the outset of his poetic career as a pastoral poet12. As Coleman 1977, 256 pertinently observes: ‘the socio-legal realism of 2 – 4 is far removed from the pastoral myth’13. The lines abound in legal terms having nothing to do with the bucolic "suw_a. Moeris thus relates about an advena possessor (cf. Cic. Agr. 2.98), agellus, coloni 8 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 337 – 8, Schmidt 1972a, 118 – 9, Berg 1974, 138 – 42, Boyle 1986, 16, Segal 1987, 181 – 2, Papanghelis 1995, 222, 2006, 397, Becker 1996, 5, Rudd 1996, 66, Henderson 1998a, 164, Hunter 2006, 132, Nauta 2006, 321. Most accurately Berg 1974, 138 names the eclogue as ‘Thalysia in reverse’; see also Saunders 2008, 31, 76. Segal 1987, 183 and n.43, rather unconvincingly, reads in the line in question an allusion to the opening of the second Theocritean idyll as well, exploited by Vergil as the model of Alphesiboeus’ song in the previous (eighth) eclogue of the Vergilian corpus. 9 Cf. also Leach 1974, 203, Henderson 1998a, 151. Putnam 1970, 294 comments on the unusual character of the walk in pastoral surroundings, suggesting a ‘state of unrest’; yet a similar setting may be found in the programmatic seventh Theocritean idyll. What causes here this notion of unrest is not the walk motif per se but the city imagery. 10 Cf. Segal (1965)–1999, 181. 11 Cf. also Segal (1965)–1999, 179 – 80, 182, 191, Boyle 1986, 15 – 9. 12 The ninth eclogue seems to be an early composition that, chronologically at least, precedes the first eclogue of the Vergilian corpus, cf. Clausen 1994, 266; see also Otis 1964, 131 – 2. For the opposite view, cf. the very good overview in Breed 2006a, 363 – 5. 13 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 295 – 6, Papanghelis 1995, 205 – 6.

The Preliminaries

187

(cf. Dig. 19.2.14, 25) and uses expressions like ‘haec mea sunt’ drawn from the language of the actio in rem (cf. Gaius Inst. 4.16)14. Similar observations have been made in the case of the parallel first eclogue, where terms as peculium, libertas, responsum, etc. highlight the ‘generic issues’ of the eclogue, also thanks to their legalistic colouring15. Apart from the overall legalistic overlay of the passage, the very reference to a soldier (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.70 – 1) taking up as an advena the ownership of Menalcas’ land has further literary implications, for the intrusion of contemporary history and legal practice into the pastoral idyllic world constitutes only a first level of analysis. The soldier functioning as a rival is a typical feature of elegy and comedy, and his depiction here as a opponent, although not in erotic terms, of a goatherd makes the eclogue ‘move away’ from the traditional pastoral beaten track. A similar ‘generic deviation’ can also be detected in the use of the term coloni (v. 4). The soldier addresses the native inhabitants of the pastoral world as members of a colony16, ascribing in this way to the local population the quality of a newcomer; this upheaval of pastoral order is further enhanced, if one understands coloni with the meaning of ‘(tenant) farmers’ as well, who are generically closer to the ‘georgic ideal’17. The ‘generic fluidity’ reaffirms itself at the end of the eclogue, where there occurs a further reference to farmers, as cutting the thick leaves, vv. 60 – 1. Theocritus’ tenth idyll is also about harvesters and agricultural labour; however, because of this very peculiarity, the idyll stands out the bucolic corpus18. This ‘thematic defection’ is accompanied by a stylistic 14 For the legalistic colour of these expressions, cf. also Coleman 1977, 256 – 7. 15 Cf. especially Papanghelis 1995, 193 ff., Coleman 1977, 78 – 9, 81 and passim, chapter 3, pp. 134 – 5. 16 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 296, Coleman 1977, 257, Saunders 2008, 96. 17 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 257. 18 Cf. Hunter 1999, 199 ff. A passing reference to reapers also appears in Theocr. 7.29, where, however, reaping is associated with herding, as the setting for bucolic song; note also that this reference to georgic labour occurs in the speech of Simichidas, i. e., an urban poet, newly converted to pastoral song, who thus may resort to ‘generic mistakes’, justified because of his status as a budding pastoral poet. Cf. also Id. 7.91 – 2 and Simichidas’ hyper–bucolism in substituting the Hesiodic Muses with Nymphs as well as his ‘generic blunder’ in viewing mountain herding as the only possible scenery for producing pastoral song, see Hunter 1999, 178. The similarity in the narrative of the two passages, beginning with the same apostrophe (cf. Theocr. 7.91: Kuj_da v_ke, Verg. Ecl. 9.2: O Lycida), may further underline the correspondence of ‘generic mistakes’. What is more, this georgic mention in Simichidas’ speech occurs at the

188

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

difference: the idyll does not show the bucolic predilection for Homeric words and expressions as well as augmentless epic past tenses, and its metre contains a good number of breaches of Callimachean rules, to a much greater extent than in the rest of the bucolic Theocritean tradition19. Vergil seems thus to assimilate in the present eclogue features and themes drawn from ‘generically dubious’ idylls like the tenth Theocritean idyll. Moeris’ distress, caused by his local and generic ‘pastoral dislocation’, is also reflected in his diction, as evidenced by the disturbed word order in vv. 2 – 320. The ‘deviation’ from linguistic purity is further elaborated by means of the personal construction of pervenio ut in vivi pervenimus…ut possessor agelli diceret (vv. 2 – 4), eschewed by classical linguistic purism (cf. ThLL X 1, fasc. XII, 1855, 28 ff.). Thus Moeris, in his agitation, appears to forget his refined Latin, as used in the rest of his speech, which abounds with archaisms in opposition to the colloquial character of Lycidas’ utterances. Lycidas moves on to a description of an idyllic landscape, a key-generic motif of the pastoral genre, as discussed in detail in the previous chapter (cf. also introduction, pp. 16, 24, 29, 164): gently sloping cliffs (v. 8: molli…clivo – note again the programmatic catchword, tender), water scenery (aquam) and old beeches (veteres…fagos) – vv. 7 ff., all suggesting familiar pastoral experience21. Beeches as a boundary tree or coating the riverbank have puzzled scholars22 ; yet one should not expect too much accuracy from the Vergilian landscape. What the poet attempts here is the reconstruction of a typical generic locus amoenus that Moeris is about to lose and, thus, what matters is the inclusion of the pastoral fagus, regardless of its unrealistic use as a boundary or its also unrealistic position by a river. The beech is the tree under whose shadow the Tityrus of the programmatic first Vergilian eclogue lies (Verg. Ecl. 1.1), and the tree on the bark of which Mopsus of the

19 20 21 22

very outset of his appearance in the poem, before his eventual initiation to the bucolic song. I therefore do not see in vv. 28 – 9 a ‘generic resonance’ (Hunter 1999, 160) of bucolic poems at least; both reapers and herdsmen do appear in the Theocritean corpus, but only the latter constitute a ‘generic marker’ of the bucolic circle. This view is further supported by the ‘generic idiosyncracy’ of Id. 10, the main ‘reaping’ idyll, as discussed above, pp. 187 – 8, standing out from the circle of Theocritean bucolic poems. Cf. also Di Benedetto 1956, 53 – 4, Fantuzzi 1995, 237, Hunter 1999, 200. Coleman 1977, 256. Cf. also Putnam 1970, 300 – 1, Henderson 1998a, 152. Cf. Clausen 1994, 271.

The Preliminaries

189

fifth eclogue carves the words and tunes of his song, the ‘historical epitome’ of pastoral (Verg. Ecl. 5.13 – 4). Finally, the beech also provides the material for the cups which symbolise pastoral poetry in the third eclogue (Verg. Ecl. 3.36 – 7). The beech thus seems to be a programmatic tree, ‘symbolic or representative’, – Clausen 1994, 35, ‘the tree of the Eclogues’, – Ross 1975, 72, the ‘distinctive landmark’, – Henderson 1998a, 152, ‘a refeature of Virgil’s bucolic landscape’, – Grant 2004, 126, identified with the bucolic space and the (Vergilian) pastoral genre23, even with Vergil himself as a bucolic poet24. Therefore Vergil does not hesitate to include it among the trees of Mantua, indifferent to the realism of the physical landscape of the area, and thus giving an unrealistic touch to his narrative25. For that reason, the beech here along with the idyllic connotations of the water imagery and the gentle hill point to Moeris’ despair over his loss. Moeris is bereaved not only of ‘pastoral space’ but also of pastoral poetry and its formalistic ‘generic constituents’. The ‘deviation’ from ‘pastoral purity’, as explained above, pp. 184 ff., also mars the idyllic scenery: the old beeches (veteres) are now seen with broken tops (fracta cacumina) 26, v. 9. The adjective vetus qualifying the beech, the tree-symbol of pastoral poetry, seems to emphasise the long literary history of the bucolic genre27 and thus to highlight its present ‘generic marring’. The adaptation of the long history of Greek pastoral poetry in Roman terms, as exemplified by the broken tree-tops of a generic idyllic landscape, is crucially given by means of a grecising construction, namely the accusative of respect, otherwise known as accusativus Graecus, in fracta cacumina. It is no coincidence that the syntax of the line adds to the polarity between Greek pastoral prehistory and Roman contemporary status of the bucolic genre, an issue running through the whole of the eclogue. What is more, the disruption of pastoral ideals is here incorporated in a distinct Vergilian pastoral technique, the parenthetic apposition in veteres, iam fracta cacumina, fagos, also known as schema Cornelianum. ‘Pastoral 23 See also Kenney 1983, 49 – 50, Rupprecht 2004, 39 – 41, 52. 24 Cf. Nethercut 1967, 16 – 27 identifying myrtle with Octavian, whereas Vergil is associated with beech. 25 Cf. Coleman 1977, 90. 26 Cf. Putnam 1970, 301 – 2, Clausen 1994, 271, Henderson 1998a, 158, Heaney 2008, 252. 27 Segal (1965)–1999, 182 sees here a ‘reference to the old rustic traditions and [a] sense of continuity in old beech trees’.

190

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

dislocation’ thus becomes more evident through a distinct pastoral trope28. A similar stylistic option also occurs in the second Vergilian eclogue29, which has similar ‘generic implications’: in vv. 3 – 5 Corydon, all aflame for the handsome Alexis, ‘deviates’ towards ‘elegiac scenery’, when expressing alone (note here the uncharacteristic solitude of the pastoral character, for which see below, p. 201) his hopeless passion for the beautiful boy. This ‘anti-bucolic’, rather elegiac, disposition of the lover is manifested in v. 3, also exhibiting the schema Cornelianum: inter densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos. Once more a distinct pastoral stylistic options functions as a foil for the rather ‘unpastoral’ behaviour of Corydon. A similar imagery, where idyllic pastoral scenery is ‘corrupted’ by an ‘unpastoral’ unpleasant detail, suggesting the upsetting of ‘pastoral space’ due to the land confiscations, also appears in the parallel first eclogue. When extolling Tityrus’ good fortune, Meliboeus, Moeris’ equivalent in the first eclogue as the character who is forced to leave the bucolic community because of the confiscations, describes the idyllic landscape that Tityrus, in opposition to himself, has managed to hang on to, vv. 46 ff. The old pastoral delights which Tityrus will keep enjoying comprise almost all the ‘generic ingredients’ of the pastoral locus amoenus (cf. also Coleman 1977, 83): familiar rivers, sacred springs, shady coolness, sweet buzz and song facilitating the old man’s sleep. The description circumscribes ‘pastoral space’ and, at the same time defines, through the accumulated use of programmatic poetological catchwords suggesting the Callimachean notions of ‘sweet’ and ‘slender’, the pastoral genre of Callimachean – neoteric sensibilities from which Meliboeus is moving away as a consequence of his (spatial and poetic / generic) displacement30. However, the imagery contains a crucial ‘unpastoral’ detail, which implies the havoc of the ‘pastoral dislocation’, the lost earlier pastoral paradise: the image of rock, marsh and muddy reeds overspreading pasturages, vv. 47 – 8. This similarity of description further points to a conscious parallel reading of the two eclogues, probably as an authorial choice as well. 28 Cf. Clausen 1994, 53 – 4, Skutsch 1956, 198 – 9, Schmidt 1972a, 101, Solodow 1986, 129 – 53, Hunter 2006, 119: ‘the parenthetic word order…was to become a kind of pastoral ‘signature’’, 132 and n.59. 29 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 301, Rupprecht 2004, 39 – 40. 30 For the Callimachean associations of the passage and its ‘generic identity’, cf. especially Papanghelis 1995, 187 ff. See also Du Quesnay 1981, 46, Breed 2006, 109.

The Preliminaries

191

In the lines in question Lycidas is seen to misinterpret another pastoral motif, the healing power of poetry. In vv. 7 – 10 Lycidas reveals his belief, also shared by other members of the pastoral community, that Menalcas could have warded off the land confiscations by means of his poetic talent, certe equidem audieram…omnia carminibus vestrum servasse Menalcan. Lycidas thus seems at first to misread here the literary motif of the poeta creator31, which occurs more clearly later in his speech (vv. 17 ff.). According to this literary topos, a poet (pastoral in this case) is by literary convention presented as accomplishing whatever he does / describes in his song; this literary topos is however perceived by Lycidas as a real-world poetic ability. Menalcas could have sung for / about the salvation of the pastoral landscape, as he did, but this could not have resulted in its immediate and direct recovery; this happens in literature (songs) not in reality. Secondly, poetry in pastoral can or is believed to function as an antidote, but only to love, as elaborated in the seventh (Lycidas and Simichidas are to be rescued from the effects of eros through song32) and the eleventh Theocritean idyll (vv. 1 – 3, cf. also Bion fr. 3). It does not have the political power to avert the sideeffects of a war; the only other major power it has is to make nature react to poetic charm by means of an orphic syndrome, cf. Verg. Ecl. 6.27 – 8, 70 – 1. Poetry is the pastoral value par excellence, but here proves ineffective in the new changed circumstances33. Moeris shares with Lycidas the same hope for salvation of the pastoral world through its highest value, poetry of the bucolic kind; but he also shares with his fellow herdsman the same despair resulting from the eventual incompetence of poetry as a means of deliverance, cf. vv. 11 – 3: audieras, et fama fuit; sed carmina tantum / nostra valent, Lycida, tela inter Martia quantum / Chaonias dicunt aquila veniente columbas. Poetry, pastoral poetry in particular, is associated here with the dove, whereas the negative effects of war, that both Moeris and Lycidas have to face, are reflected in the image of the menacing eagle34. These lines have constituted the focus of scholarly interest for two reasons: (i) the substitution of the hawk, the traditional enemy of the

31 32 33 34

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

Papanghelis 1995, 207 – 8. also Hubbard 1998, 20. also Coleman 1977, 259. also Henderson 1998a, 155, 166, 168.

192

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

dove, by the eagle, alluding to the aquila of the Roman legion35, and (ii) the epithet Chaonias qualifying, for no apparent reason36, columbas in v. 13. However, both these Vergilian innovations can be interpreted as bearing ‘generic undertones’ as well. The dove is juxtaposed to the eagle only in epic, namely Od. 20.242 – 3 and Quint. Smyrn. 1.198 – 200, whereas in all other genres the hawk figures as the foe of the dove, Hor. Carm. 1.37.17 – 8, Ov. Ars 2.363 et al., cf. Clausen 1994, 272. Moeris, faced with the results of the battle of Philippi (42 BC), seems to be thinking along epic lines; in other words, the victim of the civil confrontation – war being the subject matter par excellence of epic poetry – chooses to employ the exclusively epic version of the simile. His ‘dislocation’ from the pastoral world and his ‘deviation’ from the pastoral genre is implied here by an option for epic, and thus (also anti-neoteric), correlations and allusions of the genus grande. From this standpoint, the adding of the qualifying epithet Chaonias also seems to function as a ‘generic marker’. This Greek epithet, used in contrast to the Roman aquila (cf. Hunter 2006, 123), underlines the ‘generic difference’ between Greek pastoral tradition, which does not allow the intervention of history into a literary construction, and pastoral in Roman terms. Moeris’ and Lycidas’ loss, partly at least, consists in the fact that contemporary history deprives Roman pastoral from the exclusive literary dimension of its Greek predecessor. Besides, Papanghelis 1995, 206 – 7 (cf. also pp. 195 – 7) has compellingly associated the passage with the programmatic prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia, where the far-flying cranes and Massagetian arrows symbolising epos, as does the eagle in the present eclogue37, stand in direct opposition to the sweetness of the nightingale’s song, denoting Callimachean poetic values, as the Chaonian dove of the ninth Vergilian eclogue. Interestingly,

35 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 304, Clausen 1994, 272. Zanker 1985, 235 – 7 sees here an influence of the Hesiodic account on the hawk and the nightingale, W.D. 202 – 12. Yet, what matters in our reading is the crucial, in ‘generic terms’, substitution of the hawk by the unusual eagle. 36 Cf. Clausen 1994, 271. See also Segal (1965)–1999, 200 and n.14, who sees in the use of the epithet a ‘‘distancing’ effect’ (sic). Putnam 1970, 303 associates Chaonias with the ‘doves’, that is the priestesses in Jupiter’s oracle in Dodona (cf. also Saunders 2008, 62) and, therefore, reads the epithet as qualifying a poet in his function as vates, i. e., as a predictor of the impending future. 37 Saunders 2008, 77 as well detects in the passage under question an opposition between bucolic song and martial epic.

The Preliminaries

193

the word is in addition drawn from Euphorion, fr. 48 Powell38, a keyfigure of the Roman neoteric – Callimachean literary movement; thus the epithet with its Callimachean associations further emphasises the contrast between pastoral neoteric poetry and ‘unpastoral’ / anti-neoteric – anti-Callimachean sensibilities. A further ‘twisted’ pastoral motif is developed in vv. 14 – 6: Moeris relates his dispute with the newcomer soldier, which would lead to Menalcas’ and Moeris’ death, unless interrupted nisi me…incidere lites 39…monuisset…cornix, nec tuus hic Moeris, nec viveret ipse Menalcas. Wrangling and dispute constitute one of the main topics of pastoral song; this quarrel usually forms the narrative background against which an amoebaean bucolic is developed, as is e. g. the case of both Theocritus’ idyll 5 and Vergil’s eclogue 3. But pastoral disputes do not remain unresolved in the earlier bucolic tradition, and do not create near-death situations of the kind described here. Yet again a pastoral motif acquires non-pastoral associations. Lycidas sympathises with Moeris in vv. 17 ff., expressing his grief for Menalcas’ eviction from the ‘pastoral space’; yet it is not only the physical presence of the poet that Lycidas feels nostalgic for; what matters more is Lycidas’ being torn from Menalcas’ poetry, which functioned as a solace to him and his fellow inhabitants of the ‘pastoral space’, vv. 17 – 8: heu, tua nobis paene simul tecum solacia rapta, Menalca? Menalcas is here presented by Lycidas as a poeta creator40, singing about and thus creating an idyllic landscape: the flowering herbs – florentibus herbis, the springs – fontis and the green shade – viridi…umbra (vv. 19 – 20) constitute well-known ‘generic features’ of the pastoral locus amoenus. The same can be said of the Nymphs, quis caneret Nymphas?, v. 19, presiding over the bucolic space in ‘generic preference’ to the Muses. However, all these constituent features of the pastoral idyllic landscape are located in the past, they belong to the realm of memory rather than of everyday experience. The same can also be argued for the motif of the poeta creator; it is a common form of expression both in pastoral and in texts of the neoteric kind in general (cf. Ov. Am. 3.12.25 with Clausen 1994,

38 Cf. also Clausen 1994, 271, Lipka 2001, 102, Hunter 2006, 123. 39 Notice here with Saunders 2008, 90 – 1 the ‘unpastoral’ legalistic connotations of the term lites, calling to mind the similar and also ‘unpastoral’ formulation of Palaemon in Verg. Ecl. 3.108. 40 Cf. also Henderson 1998a, 153.

194

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

194). Here, just as the idyllic scenery it describes, it is part of a ‘pure’ pastoral past defying the ‘pastoral deviation’ of the present.

Song Exchange Lycidas proceeds with an excerpt of a song41 performed by Moeris in the recent past (v. 21: nuper). It is a Latin translation of the third Theocritean idyll, vv. 3 – 542, where a goatherd entrusts his goats to Tityrus’ charge in order to perform, without the menial cares of a herdsman, a serenade to his sweetheart, Amaryllis. However, despite its pastoral appearance43, this choice of subject seems up to a point to underline the ‘generic movement’ away from ‘pastoral purity’ discerned throughout in the present eclogue. The very choice of the komos as a pastoral remembrance is ‘generically curious’ enough per se; this idyll, together with the eleventh Theocritean idyll, the two central Greek models for the bucolic reminiscences of the bucolic excerpts of the ninth eclogue, are ‘generically dubious’ enough, in the sense that, up to a point, they stand out from the main bucolic Theocritean tradition44. The komos is a conspicuous event of urban life, and idyll three is a rustic alternative (cf. also Bion fr. 11) of this city activity45. What is more, idyll three describes a komos within a dramatic setting of the kind associated mainly with comedy (cf. Plaut. Curc. 1 – 157, Menander and his Roman alter ego, Terence, see also Arist. Eccl. 938 – 75 with Hunter 1999, 108) and with lacyd_a (note here the solo performance of the unnamed goatherd in the idyll), which was considered by ancient 41 For the fragmented character of the performances in this eclogue, cf. especially Papanghelis 2006, 387 – 93. See also the felicitous formulation of Martindale 1997, 120 as regards chiefly Ecl. 9: ‘a poetics of fragmentation’. 42 Cf. also Steinmetz 1968, 122, Putnam 1970, 308, Papanghelis 1995, 208 – 9, Becker 1996, 10 and n.10, Rudd 1996, 66, Levi 1998, 66, Rupprecht 2004, 44. 43 What is more Rupprecht 2004, 52 reads the passage in question as ‘self–annotation’, when associating it with the distinct bucolic motif of ‘pastoral succession’ (see introduction, p. 22 and n.98); thus Tityrus’ taking care of the goats may be understood as troping here Theocritus’ handing over the pastoral genre to his Roman follower, Tityrus, for this is the name that often functions as the pastoral literary mask of Vergil himself. 44 Upon commenting on the context of the two Theocritean excerpts of the eclogue, Saunders 2008, 77 crucially speaks about ‘reconfigurations of stock elegiac situations’. 45 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 107 ff.

Song Exchange

195

theorists as also deriving from the comic genre (Ath. 14.621c–d, Aristoxenus fr. 110 W2). In addition, the generic jyl\sdy at the very first line of the idyll, in conjunction with the entrance monologue of vv. 1 – 5 and the fact that the goatherd explains his doings unasked (cf. Hermogenes p. 322 Rabe for the !v]keia of the herdsman) also point to the comic genre46. The comic connections of the idyll constituting the model of the passage in question are enhanced in the ninth eclogue by the addition of the ‘eavesdropping motif’. Lycidas discloses that he eavesdropped on Moeris, when the latter was going to serenade his beloved, vv. 21 – 2. This is an unusual practice in pastoral terms, but one constituting a staple generic motif chiefly in comedy; the very verb sublego, as used here in the sense of ‘overhear’, may evoke Plautine parallels, cf. Mil. 1090: clam nostrum hunc sermonem sublegerunt 47. This ‘generic uncertainty’ of the passage is further highlighted by the marginal quality, in pastoral terms, of the lines from the Theocritean idyll Lycidas choses for his Roman performance. Passing on the charge of the herd to someone else is always the prerequisite for the pastoral occupation par excellence, i. e., singing48, and thus functions simply as its frame; Lycidas however decides to keep to this marginal task instead of the very song. Memory functions in the case of Lycidas, but in the direction of pastoral marginalia and not the central theme. Moeris’ reaction to Lycidas’ pastoral recollection is a recent (probably) composition of Menalcas, which however has nothing to do with the traditional ‘pastoral norm’; it is an encomium of Varus, aiming to convince him to save Mantua from land confiscations49. Moeris begins with the conversational syntagm immo haec, v. 26, a combination which was used, as Coleman 1977, 261 has accurately remarked, by

46 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 110. 47 Cf. Coleman 1977, 260, Clausen 1994, 274. See also Hunter 2006, 139: ‘sublegi tacitus…conjures up the world of comedy where overhearing is a dominant dramatic device’. Hunter does not, however, focus on the ‘generic implications’ of such a comic depiction. Yet for sublegere here in the function of a ‘reflexive annotation’, cf. Papanghelis 2006, 388 and n.47. 48 Cf. also Henderson 1998a, 156. 49 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 210 – 2. For Moeris’ latent warning to Varus in this excerpt, that the singer will not use his poetry in the service of Varus’ encomium, unless Mantua is eventually saved from the effects of the land confiscations, cf. Loupiac 2006, 146 – 7.

196

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

Mopsus in the fifth eclogue, v. 1350 ; whereas, however, Mopsus uses this collocation for rejecting various traditional pastoral themes in favour of his poetical account of a pastoral panorama, Moeris here embarks, by means of this combination, on a performance of panegyric tastes, which stands in direct opposition to pre-Vergilian pastoral thematic. The linguistic affinity in expression underlines more emphatically the change in poetic taste. The ‘generic undertones’ of the passage are further highlighted by the choice of the swans bearing Varus’ name to the stars, v. 29: cantantes sublime ferent ad sidera cycni. The notion of immortality of the patron / benefactor secured through poetry, as suggested in the passage in question, does not constitute a traditional pastoral motif, but appears in Theocritus only in the non-bucolic poems, Id. 16 and 1751. Moeris’ ‘generic leaning’ towards the elevated genres (panegyric style) becomes clear here, as the cycni of Menalcas’ encomium not only make Varus’ reputation sublime, but also mark Moeris’ divergence towards the generically sublime as well. Menalcas’ composition is presented as not yet perfected, as still unfinished, v. 26: necdum perfecta. But whatever the causes of this failure (failure to deliver the lines in due time or unwillingness to complete a praise with no hope of success52), what matters here is the motif of the ‘unfinished poetry’. Varus’ encomium is like Caecilius’ Magna Mater in Catul. 35 also incohatam (v. 13). In opposition to the neoteric epyllion of Catullus’ poem however, which, although unfinished, can cause the positive reaction of a Sapphica puella (v. 16), Varus’ unfinished poem has no effect whatsoever. Menalcas’ panegyric (and also anti-neoteric ?) poetry fails the test compared with Caecilius’ clearly neoteric enterprise. Menalcas’ incompetence to compose in the genus grande under the pressure of an imminent confiscation may account for this lack of success. The rustic imagery of vv. 30 – 1 (bees fleeing the bitterness of Corsican yews (note here again the poetological notion of sweetness), cows browsing clover and swelling their udders) 53 brings Menalcas’ loftier tones back to his usual poetic attitude.

50 51 52 53

Cf. also Putnam 1970, 309. Cf. also Coleman 1977, 262. Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 122. I ascribe these two lines to Menalcas’ song, as I agree with Coleman 1977, 263 that it would be improper to wish somebody, who has just lost his property, future prosperity of his bees and heifers.

Song Exchange

197

The passage thus emphasises again the ‘generic flexibility’ of the eclogue, and may be read – especially the eventual return of a pastoral poet to his pastoral poetic techniques despite his endeavours in loftier tones as an indirect formulation of Vergil’s decision to keep his distance, at least for the moment, from these loftier tones of the genus grande, and of his predilection for the genus tenue, as already discussed on the occasion of a similar situation in the eighth eclogue, cf. pp. 127 – 8, 151 – 2. It could further be interpreted as suggesting the new Roman status of pastoral poetry, where the encomium54 of the saviour is combined with traditional themes of pastoral poetry, the continuation of which however does depend upon this patronage. This poetic ideal proves inefficient in the present case; but a more optimistic note is struck later on with the references to the sidus Iulium and its beneficial influence upon pastoral land and bucolic genre, as also implied in the case of Menalcas’ Daphnis–Caesar of the fifth Vergilian eclogue, pp. 168 ff. Lycidas tries to urge Moeris to sing with his incipe, si quid habes, v. 3255. But before the reaction of Moeris is displayed, Lycidas behaves in the line of Simichidas of the seventh Theocritean idyll, namely in 7.37 – 4156, where he compares himself with Sicelidas from Samos and Philetas. The similarity of the wording makes clearer, as observed before in the case of immo haec, pp. 195 – 6, the difference in the changed Roman circumstances; both Theocritean Simichidas, cf. v. 37, and Vergilian Lycidas present themselves as the mouthpiece of the Muses, cf. vv. 32 – 3: et me fecere poetam Pierides. Simichidas is the urban poet whose pastoral poetic investiture forms the subject of the seventh idyll; hence his presentation as the delegate of the Muses – presiding over poetry, epic included – seems to be justified. Nevertheless his reference to Philetas seems to integrate him in the pastoral poetic succession, since Philetas, despite the scantiness of his extant bucolic work, is considered to be the forerunner of pastoral57. Yet Lycidas is an inhabi54 Cf. also Schmidt 1972a, 105, 111. 55 Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 5.10 – 11: incipe…, si quos…habes, Nauta 2006, 325 and n.82. For the view, not adopted here, that vv. 32b (et me fecere poetam) – 36 are to be read as a further excerpt from Menalcas’ poetry, cf. especially Rupprecht 2004, 45 – 6; see also Rose 1954, 58 – 9, Coleman 1977, 263. 56 Cf. also Putnam 1970, 337, Becker 1996, 12 – 3, Rupprecht 2004, 46 – 7 and n.62, Saunders 2008, 33. 57 Cf. Legrand 1898, 155 – 6, Bignone 1934, 27 – 9, Puelma 1960, 150, Cairns 1979, 25 – 7, Du Quesnay 1981, 39 – 40, Bowie 1985, 72 – 6. What is more, Bowie 1985, 68 – 80 sees Lycidas of the seventh programmatic Theocritean

198

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

tant of the pastoral world, a pastoral poet, who is privileged with a secure position in the ‘pastoral space’, in opposition to Moeris; thus his appeal to the Muses rather than to the Nymphs, the default protectors of pastoral land and poetry, has, in his case, further ‘generic implications’. Lycidas aspires to be a protégé of the Muses, in other words a poet of no particular pastoral specialisation. The poetic models Lycidas mentions, namely Varius and Cinna, an !pqosd|jgtom, as aptly put by Leo 1903, 15, emphasise this ‘generic fluidity’ as well, cf. vv. 35 – 6: nam neque adhuc Vario videor nec dicere Cinna digna 58. Whereas Cinna is a well-known neoteric poet (the author of erotic poems and of a neoteric epyllion, Smyrna), whose presence here is understandable, given the Callimachean – neoteric qualities of pastoral, Varius59, who is admired for his skill in the genus grande, primarily epic, is a surprising reference. His De Morte has been used as a model for Verg. Ecl. 8.85 – 9, as discussed in chapter 3, p. 149; Hor. Serm. 1.10.43 – 4 says of him that forte epos acer ut nemo Varius ducit (cf. also Carm. 1.6.1 – 2)60 and he is also known to have written at least one tragedy, Thyestes 61. It appears, accordingly, that Lycidas, although

58 59

60 61

idyll as personifying a figure of Philetas’ work. For Philetas, however, as an ‘unbucolic’ figure, cf. Cameron 1995, 488 – 93 and Hubbard 1998, 25 – 6. For the second model of Simichidas’ poetic aspiration, Asclepiades, and his influence on Simichidas’ performance, cf. mainly Krevans 1983, 215 – 6. The passage is seen as a recusatio by both Ronconi 1981, 335 and D’ Anna 1987, 427 – 38; see also Putnam 1970, 312 – 3, Hubbard 1998, 126. Varius has been unnecessary changed to Varus, i. e., Alfenus Varus, by Paratore 1954, 92 – 4; yet our interpretation of the line suggests that by his mention of Varius, Vergil further emphasises the ‘generic issues’ of the present eclogue. For the refutation of Paratore’ s thesis, cf. D’ Anna 1987, especially 428. Yet the latter sees here a conscious allusion to the epos and its contracted form, the epyllion, justifying the parataxis of these two names; see also Schmidt 1972a, 113, Thill 1979, 53. The epyllion, however, in opposition to epos in general has clear neoteric associations and thus it is at least risky enough to suggest a ‘generic community’ on this basis. For a Gallan influence on these Vergilian lines, cf. also Hinds 1983, 45 – 6, D’ Anna 1987, 429. Cf. also Nauta 2006, 322 – 3. Porphyrio ad Hor. Carm. 1.6.pr.4 – 5 gives the information that Varius is the author of both epic and tragedies as well as of elegies, fuit autem L. Varius et p carminis et tragoediarum et elegiorum auctor; yet apart from the tragedy Thyestes, there is no other relic of his tragic and elegiac work, something that has led scholars (cf. Lipka 2001, 121) to deny the existence of elegiac poems. If so, my remark gains further weight, as Lycidas compares himself to a poet exclusively devoted to the genus grande. For Varius’ panegyric epic, the laudes Augusti, according to testimony of both Porphyrio and ps–Acro ad Hor.

Song Exchange

199

a pastoral figure, aspires to the poetic talent not only of a poet of neoteric colouring but also to the poetic art of a main representative of the genus grande62. In this connection, his potential identification with a poet called Anser acquires additional importance: in v. 36 Lycidas presents himself as an anser (= goose) cackling among tuneful swans, sed argutos inter strepere anser olores. Now according to Servius ad 9.36, Vergil alludes here to poet called Anser, charged with writing panegyric, Antonius’ eulogies, et alludit ad Anserem quendam, Antonii poetam, qui eius laudes scribebat, quem ob hoc per transitum carpsit 63. The use of the Latin olor 64 in place of the Greek cycnus, previously used by Moeris in v. 29, may be seen as a textual marker transferring the comparison in Roman terms and connoting Roman actuality. If so, Lycidas as a pastoral poet once again identifies himself with a poet of quite different ‘generic propensities’. In any case the herdsman does not yet claim for himself the title of vates, v. 34, that is the label of a poet integrated in the political arena of the Augustan period65. Moeris follows up Lycidas’ identification with a poet of ambiguous poetic skill with a peculiar elision of a dactylic ending in -m (v. 37: id quidem ago et tacitus, see also Clausen 1994, 280) 66. This metrical oddity, complemented by the silence motif of tacitus, also alien to the ‘generic vividness’ of Vergilian pastoral67, underscores Moeris’ ‘alienation’ from the ‘pastoral norm’ from a metrical viewpoint. It also seems to equate Moeris, albeit indirectly, with Lycidas, since he too had previously admitted a certain lack of poetic competence (v. 34). Moeris tries to recall a pastoral song, as his pastoral memory68 is being destroyed

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Epist. 1.16.25, cf. Cameron 1995, 464; yet, for this testimony as a probable invention of the commentators, cf. Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 81, Nauta 2006, 322 and n.71. On the basis of the image of olores, Coleman plausibly concludes that either Lycidas (my view) or Menalcas aspires to the higher poetic accomplishments of the two poets, cf. Coleman 1977, 264. Cf. also Glei 1991, 85 – 6 and n.14, Levi 1998, 66. For the imagery of olor and its association with epic poets, cf. also D’ Anna 1987, 430. Cf. also Hardie 1986, 16 – 22, 1998, 18. Cf. also Soubiran 1966, 222 – 3. Cf. Putnam 1970, 314. For memory here as ‘a master trope for literary allusion’, cf. Papanghelis 2006, 390, 396 – 7. Meban 2009, 115 and passim compellingly associates Vergil’s depiction of the fragmented bucolic world by means of the memory lapse syn-

200

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

because of the predicament he finds himself into. He manages nevertheless in vv. 39 ff. to recite an excerpt from the eleventh Theocritean idyll, drawn on Id. 11.42 – 9, in which the Cyclops tries to entice his beloved Galatea out of her dwelling, by describing the idyllic character of his environment69. The song excerpt is full of pastoral pleasures, namely water imagery (waves, streams), varied flowers and pastoral trees (white poplar, vines), a cave (cf. also the idyllic setting in Verg. Ecl. 1.75 and 5.19) and last but not least the desirable shadow, constituting, as often remarked, an omnipresent ‘generic marker’ of the pastoral genre. As usual, these pastoral motifs are interwoven with catchwords alluding to the Callimachean and neoteric quality of the bucolic poetic programme: cf. the programmatic (as shown in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 173 – 4; see also pp. 74 – 5, 107) candida qualifying populus in v. 41 and the adjective lentus modifying vites (v. 42). This passage is once more of Theocritean ancestry, deriving, as is also the case with idylls 3 and 10, from an idyll of ‘dubious generic classification’. It has long been recognised that the eleventh idyll stands out from the main tradition of the Theocritean bucolic corpus (mainly 1, 4, 5, 7 and partly 6); thus it does not come as a surprise that the eleventh idyll stands alone from the circle of the bucolic idylls in almost all branches of the transmission. The idyll differs from the others in the use of motifs (the ‘unpastoral’ practice of the syrinx, v. 38, an unusual animal mixture, vv. 40 – 1), in narrative techniques (the address to Nikias as a framing narrative), as well as in language usage and metrical practice (rare Dorisms, few Homerisms, several breaches of Callimachean metrical rules) 70. Similarly to Lycidas above, Moeris also has recourse to pastoral memory, but of rather ‘doubtful’ ‘generic quality’. The very mention of Galatea in the Vergilian corpus may also add to the ‘generic frustration’, as suggested above: Galatea is not only the sweetheart of the Theocritean Polyphemus, but also, in Vergil, a spendthrift lady, the former partner of Tityrus in the first programmatic poem71, whose presence implies, due to her ‘unpastoral’ concern for money, a generic ‘dislocation’ towards the comic genre, as fully elaborated elsewhere (cf. chapter 3, drome with the tendency of the late Republic especially to link contemporary problematic situations with mnemonic fault. 69 Cf. also Steinmetz 1968, 122, Putnam 1970, 315, Becker 1996, 14, Rupprecht 2004, 47 – 8. 70 Cf. Hunter 1999, 217 – 8. 71 Cf. also Breed 2006, 20, 162 and n.74.

Song Exchange

201

p. 134). Thus the whole passage can be interpreted as expressing ‘generic ambivalence’, not only because of its ‘generically ambiguous’ Theocritean model, but also because of the dual (pastoral / comic) ‘generic status’ of the intratextual Vergilian Galatea. Lycidas continues by mentioning a song he had heard Moeris72 singing alone in the clear night, vv. 44 – 5: quid, quae te pura solum sub nocte canentem audieram?. Lycidas can remember the tune, but, in accordance with the memory deficiency syndrome evident throughout the eclogue, he cannot recall the words. ‘Pastoral dislocation’ is evidenced here not only through the omnipresent lack of memory, alien to pastoral world, but also because of Moeris’ singing habits: the herdsman is presented as singing alone in the night, a clear inversion of the pastoral habits concerning song performance73. Nocturnal solo performances are associated with the well-known motif of the ‘sleepless lover’, which belongs to the ‘generic habits’ of other literary genres, mainly comedy and elegy, where night often seems everlasting to the distressed lover74. Pastoral song is normally delivered during the day, to while away the long hours, usually in the company of other herdsmen, within an agonistic setting or as part of a friendly exchange of lines. Nightfall is not appropriate for delivering pastoral song, and its arrival brings the pastoral narrative to an end, cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.79 ff., 6.85 – 6, 10.75 – 7, Calp. 2.92 – 7, 5.120 – 1, Nemes. 1.86 – 7, 2.89 – 90, 3.67 – 9. In the eleventh idyll, vv. 38 – 40, the playing of the syrinx by the Cyclops as an accompaniment to his song during the night has also been read by the relevant scholarship as an evidence of his ‘de-bucolisation’75. In lines 46 – 50, Moeris76 reminds Lycidas of the song, which clearly is in the line of Varus’ encomium (cf. above, pp. 195 – 7). Moeris thus 72 I believe that te in v. 44 refers to Moeris and not Menalcas. 73 Cf. Coleman 1977, 266: ‘the fact that the verses were sung alone (solum) and at the night (cf. 10.75 – 6) indicates their un-pastoral character’; see also Saunders 2008, 36, Meban 2009, 109. 74 Cf. also Plaut. Merc. 3 – 5, McKeown 1989, 35 – 6. 75 Cf. Hunter 1999, 234. 76 These lines present a textual problem, as they may be attributed to either Moeris or Lycidas. Mediceus and Palatinus give them to Lycidas, whereas the Carolingian transmission, a corrector of P as well as DServius choose the second alternative. The view adopted here is that they properly belong to Moeris: Lycidas cannot recollect Moeris’ lyrics, although he remembers the tune. Moeris reminds his interlocutor of the song in vv. 46 – 50, and he thus gets to deliver both songs of non-Theocritean origin. This is appropriate to the status of Moeris as a deserter of the bucolic space, and the objections raised on the basis of the

202

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

sings about the sidus Iulium / Caesaris astrum77, the comet which appeared during the games organised by Octavian for Caesar’s memorial in July 44 BC, cf. Suet. Iul. 8878. After the accumulated experience of the first and the fifth eclogue79, as discussed in detail in the previous chapter, cf. pp. 176 – 8, the idea that politics can secure the continuation of both pastoral life and bucolic song has become familiar: it had been developed through the iuvenis Octavian of the first eclogue80, ensuring Tityrus’ continuation in the bucolic space81, and through Daphnis in Menalcas’ song of the fifth eclogue, functioning as the literary persona of Caesar and thus securing the continuity of pastoral. In the present eclogue, Caesar’s comet in a similar function can make the fields gladden with grain and the grape deepen in colour on the sunny slopes, vv. 48 – 982. The hope for the pastoral future becomes clearer in these lines by the image of Daphnis’ (the pastoral singer’s par excellence) grandchildren (an allegory for the future generations and pastoral procreation) gathering the fruit of Daphnis’ grafted pears in the present (v. 50), although these very images also suggest the ‘generic versatility’ of Roman pastoralism, being a georgic rather that a ‘pure’ pastoral motif, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.7383. The mention of pears is probably not

77 78 79 80 81 82

83

resultant asymmetry in the allocation of songs (cf. Clausen 1994, 280 – 1; see also Perkell 2001, 73 – 4) do not constitute in my view adequate reasons against the above allocation of lines. I therefore accept the assignment of the verses to Moeris in accordance with the Carolingian transmission, DServius and most of modern editors. Cf. also Schmidt 1972a, 109 and n.23, Stégen 1953, 334, Leo 1903, 16 and n.1. For Verg. Ecl. 9.44 – 50 as uttered by Lycidas only, cf. Papanghelis 2006, 384 and n.39. See also Rupprecht 2004, 48 and n.66. For these two alternative designations of the comet, cf. Nauta 2006, 324 and n.77; see also Buchheit 1990, 56 – 7. Cf. Ramsey – Licht 1997. For an analogy with the deified Caesar in the fifth Vergilian eclogue, cf. also Breed 2006, 22. Cf. also Küppers 1989, 35. Cf. also Putnam 1970, 319. Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 216 – 8 vs. Saunders 2008, 37, on the other hand, who draws attention to the subjunctive of the formulation (cf. also Alpers 1979, 144), which renders the positive influence of the star on the fields only possible but by no means certain (see also Leach 1974, 99); this lack of certainty, combined with the also potentially pessimistic intertext of v. 50, namely Verg. Ecl. 1.73, ‘grafts onto this endeavour the prospect of failure’. Cf. also Putnam 1970, 319 – 20, Alpers 1986, 65 and n.20, Boyle 1986, 18 and n.8, Nauta 2006, 325. Segal (1965)–1999, 182 points out a difference of optimism between the first and the ninth eclogue. He correctly senses in the rele-

Song Exchange

203

coincidental, since this tree can bear fruits even in advanced age, thus emphasising the image of a prolonged pastoral survival, even in a changed semi-political form as opposed to its ‘pure’ literary Greek background. From this perspective, a polarisation between the ancient stars of v. 46: antiquos signorum…ortus, to which Daphnis is invited to turn a blind eye, and the new star of Caesar (v. 47: Dionaei…Caesaris astrum) may be read as troping a movement away from old traditional pastoral ideals towards the new changed Roman state of affairs, where ‘traditional pastoral’ is blended with politics and georgic ideals. Moeris also complains about the loss of his memory, his lack of ability for pastoral performance, v. 51: omnia fert aetas, animum quoque. Yet in opposition to his present state of inability / difficulty to perform pastoral song, i. e., traditional bucolic lyrics of a Callimachean – neoteric colouring, an image of the past is brought forward: when a boy, Moeris remembers spending long days in song, vv. 51 – 2: saepe ego longos cantando puerum memini me condere soles. Crucially, however, the above motif appears previously in Callimachus’ Heraclitus epigram, namely Ep. 2.2 – 3 Pf.: 1lm^shgm d’ bss\jir !lv|teqoi Fkiom 1m k]sw, jated}salem84. Thus Moeris clearly associates his past of pastoral ‘purity’ and poetic productivity with Callimachean undertones, whereas his lack of memory in the present moves him away from traditional poetic qualities of the pastoral genre. What is more, by varying the default expression diem condere with the Lucretian reminiscence soles here (cf. vant context of the first eclogue a note of ‘bitterness’ and ‘disappointment’ in opposition to the more optimistic use of the motif of the ninth eclogue, in its association with the beneficent sidus Iulium; cf. also Loupiac 2006, 145. Both Wagenvoort 1956, 261 and Hubbard 1998, 123 read Verg. Ecl. 9.50 as ironic, whereas a more optimistic reading of the passage is offered by Klinger 1967, 156 – 7, Berg 1974, 136 – 8, Leach 1974, 206 – 7. Flintoff 1992, 65 – 71 convincingly reads the above allusion to Caesaris astrum as a proof of Octavian’s political ability to transform a rather ominous sign, like the comet, into an omen of positive undertones; see also Ramsey – Licht 1997, 142 – 5. 84 Segal (1965)–1999, 184 is of the view that Vergil draws here on Theocritus, Id. 11.39 – 40. Yet both the wording of the lines and the very notion of resting for long hours in sun with singing bring Moeris’ lines closer to Callimachus rather than to Theocritus. For this Callimachean motif, cf. also Williams 1991, 169 – 77, Heyworth 1994, 76 – 9, Merli 1997, 385 – 90, Henderson 1998a, 168, Hunter 2006, 132 – 4, Meban 2009, 113 – 4. Papanghelis 1995, 219 – 20 plausibly discerns in the excerpt under question a further allusion to vv. 35 – 8 of the prologue in Callimachus’ Aetia, where the song of slender quality functions as a means of rejuvenation.

204

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

Lucr. 6.1219, with Clausen 1994, 28485) Moeris pays his respects to yet another poetic formative influence of the neoteric movement and of pastoral, namely Lucretius. Both Callimachus and Lucretius are related to the ‘generic purity’ of the past, but for the moment Moeris is seen by the wolves first (v. 54: lupi Moerin videre priores) and thus loses his poetic voice. The wolf imagery of the line, apart from the self-evident ‘unpastoral’ character of the rapacious enemy of the pastoral animal life86, is of particular interest, if one takes into account the close association of this animal with forms of tyranny in ancient thought, as Raios 2001 has convincingly shown. Although it is not tyranny, the form of political intervention that deprives Moeris from his pastoral status and poetic voice is clearly depicted in negative colours. It seems, therefore, that the animal imagery, despite its proverbial character, bears political undertones as well. Lycidas complains about Moeris’ unwillingness to continue his pastoral singing, v. 56: causando nostros in longum ducis amores, and tries to urge the latter’s poetic inspiration on by alleviating his burden, v. 65: hoc te fasce 87 levabo. Whereas Moeris has lost appetite for pastoral poetic composition, Lycidas is far from such a predicament, and perhaps that is the reason why he manages to secure his ‘pastoral continuity’. However, the alternatives he proposes to Moeris for a song exchange seem to be distant from regular pastoral circumstances. In vv. 60 – 2 Lycidas asks Moeris to set down the kids and be free for song performance; but the place he proposes for this exchange of song somehow ‘deviates’ from the traditional bucolic setting, which is often an idyllic landscape characterised by greenery, flowers, water coolness and shadow. Shadow also appears in Lycidas’ proposal, but only at the moment of its loss / reduction, with the lopping of the thick leaves88. The motif of foliage stripping (probably a frondatio in early summer, cf. Coleman 1977, 271), also a main concern of the Vergilian Georgics (cf. 1.156 – 7, 305 – 6, 2.362 – 70, 397 ff.), in conjunction with the image of the work-

85 86 87 88

Cf. also Lipka 2001, 102. Cf. also Cipolla 1962, 57, Putnam 1970, 323. Putnam 1970, 330 – 1 sees in fascis a symbolism of contemporary politics. Cf. also Putnam 1970, 328 – 9 crucially pointing out that this frondatio deprives ‘pastoral space’ from shade, indispensable for song-making and relaxation, further anticipating the arrival of the also ‘unpastoral’ winter.

Song Exchange

205

ing labourers, ‘broadens the scope’ of this eclogue towards other ‘generic preferences’, in this case, mainly of the ‘georgic ideal’89. The same can also be argued for the emphasis on weather signs; Lycidas, by means of an allusion (vv. 57 – 8) to the non-pastoral Theocritean idyll 2.3890, explains that the dropping of the wind foretells rain. Such preoccupations do not appear in the pastoral world, where song is usually the outcome of the burning heat of day-time under a cool shade (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.1 – 5, Theocr. 7.88 – 9, E.B. 21) and there is no particular anxiety over night and imminent rain. The whole image, however, calls to mind similar concerns of didactic poetry (weather signs, cf. chapter 7, p. 254) 91, something which may be seen as further reinforcing a sense of ‘generic branching out’ in / towards georgic concerns. A similar ‘penchant’ towards the ‘georgic ideal’ also occurring as a symptom of a disordered ‘pastoral space’ in the first eclogue, where one finds a reference to ploughing and sowing (v. 70) as well as to a frondatio (v. 56), cf. n.89 on p. 20592, further invites to a parallel reading of the two eclogues. Moeris however declines Lycidas’ offer, something without precedent in the pastoral corpus. Whereas the reference to the tomb of Brasilas in Id. 7.10 – 1193 is followed by the production of song, in the present eclogue the reverse happens: the view of Bianor’s tomb (v. 60) 94, 89 The same image of a frondatio also mars the otherwise idyllic landscape that Meliboeus describes as evidence of Tityrus’ blessed permanence in the bucolic world of the first eclogue, vv. 51 – 8; although modeled on Theocr. 7.135 – 42, the Vergilian version inserts in the Theocritean world two notions closely associated with realistic anxieties, namely the labour of a frondator and the notion of property, cf. Putnam 1970, 46 – 54, Hubbard 1998, 53: ‘the perfect pastoral moment contains within itself the seeds of its potential loss and negation’. This may also be seen as a further sign of the deconstructive power that the real world of Rome can exercise upon the literary landscape of the Theocritean literary ‘green cabinet’. 90 Cf. Coleman 1977, 270, Clausen 1994, 285, Segal (1965)–1999, 185, 191. 91 For the wording of the image, cf. Coleman 1977, 270, Clausen 1994, 286. 92 Cf. also Coleman 1977, 84. 93 For Verg. Ecl. 9.59 – 60 alluding to Theocr. 7.10 – 11, see Coleman 1977, 270 – 1, Clausen 1994, 286, Segal (1965)–1999, 186 – 7, Saunders 2008, 38. 94 For Iliad, 11.86 – 92, as the literary model for Bianor’s presence in the eclogue, cf. Tracy 1982, 328 – 30. For Bianor and his possible identification with Ocnus as the founder of Mantua, cf. Servius ad 9.60; yet, see, on the other hand, Tugwell 1963, 132 – 3 claiming an influence of A.P. 7.261. See also Putnam 1970, 327 – 8, who also reads Bianor as a founder of Mantua and his tomb as symbolising mortality (cf. also Rupprecht 2004, 56: ‘Todes-Motiv’), as ‘the focal point

206

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

functioning as an intertextual echo of Brasilas’ tomb in the Thalysia and thus as a ‘reading anticipation’ for the production of pastoral song, leads in the opposite direction. Moeris turns down Lycidas’ proposal, interestingly by means of a linguistic syntagm, v. 66: desine plura, puer, which functioned, as Coleman 1977, 272 accurately observed, as the trigger for the exchange of songs between Mopsus and Menalcas in the fifth eclogue of Vergil’s bucolic corpus, v. 1995. The same technique is used also in vv. 64 – 5, where Lycidas proposes to Moeris to make their journey agreeable by singing, alluding to a similar challenge in Id. 7.35 – 696, followed in the case of the Thalysia by song exchange. Once again the intertextual background does not become foreground, and any intertextual anticipation for song remains unrealised. Moeris thus appears to incarnate the process of ‘generic adoption’ of pastoral poetry in the Roman literary tradition; politics now impose their presence upon the literary landscape of the Greek pastoral practice97 and the permanence of both ‘pastoral space’ and genre is thus secured by political means98. Yet Moeris does not sympathise with this version of pastoral, feeling nostalgic for the traditional pastoral past and thus the new circumstances cause the loss of his voice. However, the effects of the new and changed situation are upon him. The dithyrambic announcement of a new Roman pastoral closely connected with the presence of history in a literary idyllic bucolic landscape and the eulogy of its political salvation, expressed through the glorification of the god-figure Octavian in the first eclogue (vv. 6 – 7) and the apotheosis of Caesar in Daphnis’ figure in the fifth eclogue, is not clearly spelt out in the ninth eclogue. Nevertheless I cannot share the deep pessimism of some critical readings99 concerning the continuation or not of the ‘pastoral voice’ as well. Moeris may have lost his voice, but

95 96 97 98 99

in a journey away from poetry’, Brenk 1981, 427 – 30, Rupprecht 2004, 53 and n.91. Cf. also Putnam 1970, 333 – 4, Alpers 1996, 171 and n.48, Rupprecht 2004, 50 – 1 and n.77, Saunders 2008, 40. Cf. also Coleman 1977, 271, Clausen 1994, 286. Cf. also Segal (1965)–1999, 188 – 9. Cf. also Schmidt 1972a, 115. Cf. Putnam 1970, 335, Tracy 1990, 56 – 7, Clausen 1994, 268, Hubbard 1998, 127, Rupprecht 2004, 36 – 61, Hunter 2006, 123, 130 ff.; see also Winterbottom 1976, 55 – 9, Solodow 1977, 766 – 7, Van Sickle 1978, 183 – 8, Boyle 1986, 15 – 6, 24 – 30.

Linguistic Characterisation

207

a predicted return of Menalcas100, although in changed poetical circumstances suggested by his shift to the encomiastic poetry for Varus, brings the eclogue to its closure with the hope for the prolongation of pastoral song101, even in a modified form. Lycidas as well, although also affected by the ‘generic side-effects’ of the ‘pastoral dislocation’ running through the whole of the eclogue, seems to believe in pastoral song and thus can be read as a hope for its Roman continuity102.

Linguistic Characterisation It has already been observed that Moeris presents the ideal past in positive colours; the past is associated for him with both pastoral tranquility and ‘pastoral generic purity’. This may account for a penchant in his language and metrical habits for archaic variants, a linguistic trend justified in Moeris’ case probably by his old age as well. This linguistic penchant of his appears already in his very first lines in the poem: in v. 6 Moeris resorts, within a curse formula, to the old form nec in place of the CL ne, quod nec bene vertat 103. Furthermore, the obsolete metrical character of the line, the fourth foot of which consists in a one-word spondee104, adds to the archaic colouring of Moeris’ diction. A similar usage of 100 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 221. 101 Cf. also Segal (1965)–1999, especially 198 – 9, Leach 1974, 210. 102 Perkell’s 2001, 64 – 88 reading of the eclogue is also based on a dichotomy between the pessimistic voice of Moeris and the more optimistic voice of Lycidas. Becker 1996, 1 – 22 as well notices a more optimistic attitude on Lycidas’ part; the latter appears to believe in the function of ‘shared song’ as a ‘pleasurable escape’, whereas Moeris, on the other hand, seems to be of the view that all functions of speech (delectare, docere and movere – according the Roman rhetorical teaching) are lost. Hardy 1990, 29 – 38, on the other hand, ‘makes out’ an alternation between ‘optimism’ and ‘despair’ on the analogy of a vacillation between ‘remembering’ and ‘forgetting’. 103 For the archaic character of the particle occurring in legal and religious language, which inevitably retains several features of archaic language, cf. also Putnam 1970, 298, Coleman 1977, 257 – 8. 104 For the old-fashioned metrical colouring of the rhythm, cf. also Clausen 1994, 270. Scholars disagree as to the reading of the line, as some prefer the inverse order vertat bene, thus eliminating the one word spondee of the fourth foot, a very rare metrical alternative in the Eclogues, with a pause in the diaeresis. But since these metrical options increase the archaic tone of Moeris’ language, here the alternative reading bene vertat, also supported by Donatus, Nonius and Servius, is preferred.

208

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

nec as an archaic negative particle also occurs in necdum perfecta, v. 26, unless one prefers the variant reading sed nondum 105. Equally archaic is the separation of nam from the interrogative pronoun in quis est nam ludus in undis?, v. 39, reminding of similar comedy syntagms, cf. Plaut. Aul. 136, Rud. 945106, the simple ferre in place of auferre in v. 51: omnia fert aetas 107, the construction memini me condere in v. 52, where meminisse is construed with the present infinitive rather the CL perfect alternative108. Last but not least, the long scansion of i in mihı¯ – v. 53109 as well as of e in pue¯r et in v. 66 may also be seen as antiquated metrical lengthenings110. A similar movement away from the uncomplicated colloquialism of rustic speech is also seen in the speech of Meliboeus in the first eclogue; Meliboeus, who like Moeris is evicted from the ‘pastoral space’, is also obsessed with the past111 and thus his ‘pastoral alienation’ seems to be reflected in the elevated and somewhat archaic character of his diction; an obvious archaic construction appears in the speech of this forced deserter of the ‘pastoral space’ in v. 17: memini praedicere, i. e., the use of the present instead of the perfect infinitive as a complement to memini, a syntactical option crucially shared by Moeris (v. 52), as discussed above. Meliboeus also shares with Moeris the use of the simple form instead of the compound, v. 3: dulcia linquimus arva for relinquimus. A further metrical archaism in the diction of Meliboeus occurs in the long a of abera¯t in v. 38. In the case of synonyms, he prefers the elevated equivalent lexical option, i. e., the choice favoured by higher genres; 105 Cf. Coleman 1977, 261. 106 Cf. Coleman 1977, 265, Clausen 1994, 281. 107 For the archaic character of the uncompounded alternative substituting the compound, cf. Maltby 2002, 197 – 8. Cf. also Lipka 2001, 162 – 5. 108 Cf. Clausen 1994, 42. 109 Cf. Coleman 1977, 74. 110 Cf. Coleman 1977, 272. An archaism is found in Lycidas’ speech as well, namely the combination certe equidem in v. 7 also found in comedy, Plaut. Mil. 433, Pers. 209, cf. also Lucr. 3.1078. What matters again is the relevant accumulation of archaisms in the speech of Moeris rather than in Lycidas’. What is more Coleman 1977, 258, Lipka 2001, 142 might be right in considering the combination as colloquial, for its two (out of four in total, Quint. 8.6.46 is simply a quotation of Verg. Ecl. 9.7 – 10) instances are to be found in the comic genre; this may account for the use of this syntagm by Lycidas, whose diction is characterised, as will be demonstrated below, pp. 209 – 10, by a penchant for colloquial linguistic alternatives. 111 Cf. also Segal (1965)–1999, 178.

Linguistic Characterisation

209

thus he uses opacus in v. 52: frigus captabis opacum (cf. Pacuv. trag. 362, Verg. A. 2.725, 3.508, 619, etc) instead of umbrosus, which rather belongs to a lower literary register112. The same could also be argued for gravis instead of gravidus (= pregnant) in v. 49: gravis… fetas. It is also a lexical option favoured mainly by higher poetic genres, chiefly epic and tragedy (cf. also Verg. A. 1.274, 6.516, Ov. Fast. 2.615, Sen. Oed. 637) 113. Lycidas’ speech is mainly characterised by colloquialisms; the fact that he has managed to keep himself in the pastoral world may account for this predilection, as colloquialism often marks the rustic character of a herdsman’s language. Typically colloquial features are: sublegere in the sense of ‘secretly overhear’ in v. 21114, the use of the present indicative in a dum clause denoting posteriority115 (v. 23: dum redeo), the construc112 Cf. Clausen 1994, 51. What is more in Catullus too, c.37.19, opacus seems to add to the parody of the didactic poet Egnatius, cf. Clausen 1994, 51. See also Lipka 2001, 146 – 7 who, albeit his caveats, does also acknowledge a semantic overlap of the adjectives as well as the replacement of umbrosus by opacus as a recent development in Vergil’s time. 113 The word crops back in literary texts, probably as a conscious archaism, with later Christian authors, Ambr. In Psalm. 118, Prud. Cath. 3.142. 114 The word appears with this sense elsewhere in comedy only, cf. Plaut. Aul. fr. dub., Mil. 1090, Turp. com. 5. Cf. also Coleman 1977, 260. One would counter-argue here as to how far a distinction between comic (and thus rather nonpastoral) and colloquial (and therefore bucolic) can be maintained; thus sublego has previously been taken, cf. p. 195, as a sign of a ‘comic generic intrusion’, whereas here it is viewed as a colloquialism, i. e., as a default feature characterising the language of rustic herdsmen. Nonetheless, one should distinguish between language per se and the various contexts / generic motifs a specific linguistic formation may allude to; thus, in the case of sublegere, what seems to be non-pastoral is the very ‘eavesdropping comic motif’ it evokes, whereas, at the same time, the distribution of the form in the sense of ‘to pick up (words)’ (cf. OLD 2) makes it fit for rustic colloquialism. To sum up: what can linguistically be ‘pastoral’ may – at the same time – also function – in terms of intertextuality – as rather ‘unpastoral’. This seems to be part of a broader ‘complex generic patterning’ Vergil’s poetry, fraught with ‘ambiguity’, avails itself of. 115 A construction cherished chiefly by the colloquial genres, where it shows productivity, namely comedy (e. g. Plaut. Most. 683, Ter. Ad. 196, Caec. com. 227, Pompon. atel. 66), epistolography (e. g. Cic. Att. 10.3.1), script. R.R. (e. g. Colum. 6.7.4), satire (e. g. Mart. Sp. 24.5), novel (e. g. Apul. Met. 1.22), later Christian authors, where the construction shows a similar frequency as in the comic genre (e. g. Hier. Epist. 49.6.3), cf. also ThLL V 1, 2216, 81 ff., Coleman 1977, 261.

210

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

tion of inter with the accusative of the gerund, v. 24: inter agendum 116, caveo in the imperative construed with an infinitive complement, v. 25: occursare capro…caveto 117 instead of an ut clause or a bare subjunctive (cave despuas, Catul. 50.19, with Clausen 1994, 275), the si quid habes collocation in v. 32118, an adjective in the rather colloquial ending -osus (ventosus in v. 58 in the sense of ‘produced by wind’119), Lycidas’ penchant for ellipsis (double ellipsis120 in v. 1), parenthesis (v. 23) 121 and repetition (vv. 23 – 5), all of which add to the colloquial effect122. What is more, in this last case the parenthesis, being a conspicuous feature of Callimachean narrative patterns123, underlines the Callimachean quality of the pastoral program in Rome, as set out mainly by the first eclogue124, a poetic quality Moeris loses because of his displacement125. A similar colloquial linguistic attitude suggesting the rural character of the rustic dialect may also be observed in the case of Tityrus in the 116 The construction appears in the comic genre, Caec. com. 193, Afran. tog. 422. The fragment from Ennius comes from inc.2 V. 117 With the exception of an instance at Ov. Pont. 3.1.139 – 40, where the construction also affects with its colloquial colouring, the syntagm appears mainly in colloquial sources, e. g. epistolography, Catullus and later Christian authors (Ambr. Abr. 1.9.84), cf. also ThLL III, 635, 68 ff. (a). 118 The syntagm appears significantly mainly in the epistolography of Cicero, Att. 4.10.1, 7.9.4, 12.44.3; see also Ov. Met. 6.612, within a quasi dialogical setting as well; cf. also Verg. Ecl. 3.52, Coleman 1977, 263. 119 Only in pastoral (cf. also Calp. 4.28) and the novel (Apul. Met. 5.15). Cf. OLD 2c. For the colloquial character of the ending -osus, cf. Cooper 1895, 122 – 32. See also Lipka 2001, 7 – 10. 120 Cf. also Segal (1965)–1999, 181 pointing out the ‘far more elliptical’ character of Lycidas’ utterance in relation to its Theocritean model, Id. 7.21. This further points to a conscious enhancement of Lycidas’ colloquial colouring on Vergil’s part. 121 Parenthesis also appears in Moeris’ diction, vv. 3, 6; but in the latter case the parenthesis is marked by a distinct archaism, namely the use of nec as a negative particle, cf. p. 207. 122 Cf. Coleman 1977, 261; see also Lipka 2001, 143. 123 Cf. Williams 1968, 711, Clausen 1994, 45. 124 Cf. mainly Papanghelis 1995, 185 and passim. 125 I do not see any particular colloquial colouring in the use of dare for dicere in Verg. Ecl. 1.18, cf. Coleman 1977, 77, Lipka 2001, 132. It does appear in epic, cf. V. Fl. 5.217 – 8 and, when appearing in Hor. Serm. 2.8.4 – 5, it has a mock-solemn character, cf. Clausen 1994, 42. In any case, what matters is not individual cases of colloquialism, but the relevant accumulation of the phenomenon in the speech of Lycidas – Tityrus and its corresponding relative absence from Moeris’ – Meliboeus’ diction.

Conclusion

211

first eclogue, as a linguistic marker of his ‘pastoral continuity’. The colloquial colouring is secured mainly by an unidiomatic linguistic usage further suggesting the rusticity of the colloquial, oral rural idiom as a foil to the written character of pastoral poetry as art: for example, a very peculiar syntax occurs in vv. 9 – 10, namely the a.c.i. construction as a complement of permitere, in meas errare boves…et ipsum ludere instead of the standard dative as an indirect complement with an ut clause or the infinitive as the direct object126. The impression of linguistic informality is further enhanced by the use of stultus in v. 20, avoided by the higher genres of the period127. A contrast is thus established between Meliboeus preferring, as shown above, pp. 208 – 9, the elevated equivalent, the linguistic option shared by higher literary genres, and Tityrus, who maintains, at least up to a certain point, his pastoral identity and his rustic colloquialism of a lower literary register. In general, the similarity of status between Tityrus and Lycidas, on the one hand, and Meliboeus and Moeris, on the other, seems also to be reflected in the resemblance of their manner of speech128.

Conclusion This chapter has tried to examine the means Vergil uses in order to suggest the ‘generic movement’ from Greek pastoral to its Roman continuation; ‘pastoral disruption’ as evidenced by land confiscations results in ‘generic change’ and ‘song fragmentation’ as well. ‘Generic transformation’ becomes clear both by the themes and the narrative techniques the two singers employ in their singing exchange: a movement towards direct encomium, atypical of Theocritean bucolic (stricto sensu) poetry, and an association of politics with pastoral is evident and thus commented upon in Moeris’ excerpts. Yet in Lycidas’ case as well, as in Moeris’ Theocritean extract, in spite of a pastoral veneer, the very choice of ‘generically dubious’ model idylls (the third and eleventh Theocritean 126 Cf. Coleman 1977, 75. 127 Although not strictly exclusive to the lower genres, it is productive in colloquial sources only, cf. OLD 1a; see also Clausen 1994, 42, Axelson 1945, 100. 128 Hic in v. 16 seems to be the adverb rather the pronoun vs. Lipka 2001, 142, Coleman 1977, 260, Clausen 1994, 273. In any case colloquial seems to be the combination hic homo (cf. Clausen op. cit.) rather than every syntagm consisting in hic + proper name, cf. e. g. Plaut. Amph. 402.

212

Memory Destroyed: A Reading of the Ninth Eclogue

idylls) together with the various settings of a song’s performance (lone singer in night, ‘eavesdropping motif’, georgic emphasis, rain as a menace to pastoral song, etc.) suggest a ‘generic diversification’ in the case of the ninth eclogue. The split, as in the first programmatic eclogue, between the two interlocutors, Lycidas, securing his permanence in the ‘green cabinet’, and Moeris, dispossessed from his pastoral goods, is evidenced in their ‘generic outlook’ as well: Moeris is presented as ‘deviating’ from traditional pastoral ‘generic purity’ to a greater extent than Lycidas, who maintains a more mainstream pastoral tone in his performance. This polarity is also expressed by means of language / style-dynamics. Moeris has a penchant for archaic idioms, which underline his obsession with the past, whereas Lycidas secures his place in both pastoral setting and rustic colloquialism. A similar pattern appears in the first eclogue as well, further facilitating the parallel reading of the two poems: Meliboeus is forced to leave the pastoral world and thus changes his idiom in the direction of a higher diction mostly favoured by other genres, namely of the genus grande. Tityrus, on the other hand, in imitation of Lycidas’ linguistic habits, manages to keep both his farm and his stylistic colloquialism, thus declaring his immovability from the pastoral world.

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language in Calpurnius Siculus’ Amoebaean Songs – Calp. 2 Calpurnius Siculus’ pastoral work is divided into two main thematic groups: eclogues 1, 4 and 7, on the one hand, the so-called ‘panegyric group’, whose subject matter is the praise of the emperor and in which the pastoral setting only functions as a foil for the panegyric composition, and eclogues 2, 3, 5 and 6, on the other hand, the pastoral poems proper, the merae bucolicae, which more or less follow the line of Theocritean, post-Theocritean and Vergilian bucolics and mainly deal with the life and the preoccupations of the ‘green cabinet’1. In this second category Calpurnius uses the structure of the song-contest twice, in eclogues 2 and 6; but in the sixth Calpurnian eclogue, against the earlier ‘pastoral norm’, the singing match does not take place after all, although proposed and long expected2. Instead, Astylus and Lycidas exchange their conflicting views on the poetic performances of another song-contest taking place ‘offstage’ (vv. 1 – 5), namely the exchange of songs between Nyctilus and Alcon. Capitalizing on the tension developed between the contesters, Lycidas proposes to Astylus a further singing match with Alcon as an umpire, vv. 19 – 21; although pledges are put forward and Mnasyllus is finally chosen as the arbiter, vv. 28 ff., the ill-feeling and hostility among the herdsmen is too intense to be resolved3, and hence the song-contest is finally aborted. The default pastoral ‘generic expectation’, i. e., the resolving of tension through dialogue / song exchange, is thus not met; hence it is this to a large extent that causes a feeling of ‘generic estrangement’ in the eclogue4. 1 2

3 4

Cf. Hubbard 1998, 152; see also introduction, pp. 35 ff. Cf. especially Leach 1975, 220 – 2, Gagliardi 1981, 37 – 44, Davis 1987, 37 – 8, Effe – Binder 1989, 120 – 4, Gibson 2004, 8 – 13, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 16, Simon 2008, 57 – 70, Vinchesi 2008, 543 – 57. See also Schäfer 2001, 149 – 53. Cf. also Leach 1975, 220. Cf. also Breed 2006, 107.

214

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

The Prerequisites Consequently the only eclogue in the pastoral group of the Calpurnian corpus that remains faithful to the song-contest structure is eclogue 2. Following the standard pattern, two singers meet (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 3.55 ff., 5.1) with a view to exchanging songs in an agonistic setting (v. 9: magnum certamen erat, see also Verg. Ecl. 7.16, 8.35). From a formalistic viewpoint, the prerequisites of a bucolic song-contest, as established by the pastoral tradition preceding Calpurnius, are largely met: reference is made by the external narrator to both physical and artistic qualities of the two contestants (vv. 3 – 4: formosus uterque nec impar voce sonans, cf. also [Theocr.] 8.3 – 4, Verg. Ecl. 7.4 – 56), who are presented by name from the very first line of the poem (v. 1: puer Astacus et puer Idas), and the youth of both singers, a further ‘generic marker’ of the amoebaean boujokiasl|r7, is clearly signaled in the narrative. Additionally, a generically impeccable location and time for the singing match is announced: the noontide heat of a summer day (v. 4: cum terras gravis ureret aestas, cf. also Theocr. 6.3 – 4) in the surroundings of a chilly locus amoenus8 comprising a pastoral cooling spring and a shady tree, v. 5. The adherence to standard bucolic practice continues with the evaluative remarks concerning the sweetness of the songs to be performed (v. 6: dulcique simul contendere cantu), the fixing of prizes (vv. 7 – 8) and the appointment of an umpire (v. 9). Last but not least, the pastoral scenery is complemented with the orphic syndrome of vv. 10 – 209, harking back to a Vergilian song-contest, Ecl. 8.1 – 410, and approximating a further generic pastoral motif, that of the pathetic fallacy. However, a closer reading of the details of the setting described reveals that the pre-Calpurnian pastoral canon is being up to a point ‘de5 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 136, Keene 1969, 66, Messina 1975, 53, Friedrich 1976, 32, Kettemann 1977, 100 and n.9, Gagliardi 1984, 30, Schäfer 2001, 142. 6 Cf. also Cesareo 1931, 39 – 40, Wendel 1933, 37, Verdière 1954, 240, Messina 1975, 52, Friedrich 1976, 25 – 9, Stanzel 1989, 186 and n.5, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 155 and n.17, Pearce 1990, 44, Amat 1991, 11, 14 and n.25, Vinchesi 1996, 36, 45, Schäfer 2001, 141 and n.6, Fey-Wickert 2002, 57 – 8, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 165. See also later Nemes. 2.16. 7 Cf. Stanzel 1989, 190, Schäfer 2001, 141; see also Friedrich 1976, 21. 8 Cf. Friedrich 1976, 29 – 30, Davis 1987, 33; see also Amat 1995, 80. 9 Cf. also Leach 1975, 209. 10 Cf. also Cesareo 1931, 42, Friedrich 1976, 26, 36, Kettemann 1977, 100 – 1 and n.10, Davis 1987, 34, Schäfer 2001, 142 – 3 and n.12, Fey-Wickert 2002, 64, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 21.

The Prerequisites

215

constructed’: first of all the names ascribed to the two singers do not have any pastoral prehistory whatsoever11. It is true that Vergil too employs characters with names without a ‘pastoral pedigree’ in his pastoral work; but in his singing matches, both competing herdsmen possess a clear pastoral antecedent. In the third Vergilian eclogue, the non-Theocritean Menalcas (yet, cf. [Theocr.] 8, 9, 27.44) is coupled with the Theocritean Damoetas, impersonating Polyphemus in Theocr. 6, while in the seventh eclogue both contestants have genuine Theocritean antecedents: Corydon harks back to the cowherd in the fourth Theocritean idyll, and Thyrsis comes from Theocr. 1.19. Astacus and Idas of the second Calpurnian poem, on the contrary, have nothing to do with the earlier ‘green cabinet’; instead Idas and Astacus (the latter in its patronymic form Astacides) show up in other literary genres, mainly in epic (cf. Verg. A. 9.575, Ov. Met. 8.305, Stat. Th. 8.718, 724 – 7, 746, see also Ov. Ib. 515, Fast. 5.699 – 702) 12 ; Idas does appear in the Theocritean corpus, yet significantly in the non-pastoral idyll 22.137 – 40. Calpurnius thus breaks up the Vergilian pattern by preferring, within a pastoral setting, names of a rather ‘unpastoral’ character. These two singers bearing ‘unpastoral’ names (note also that one of them has a non-bucolic profession, being a gardener (v. 2: dominus…Astacus horti)) 13 are further involved in an ‘unpastoral’ situation, an elegiac triangle, whereby both young men are in love with the same puella, Crocale (vv. 1 – 3: Crocalen puer Astacus et puer Idas…dilexere diu 14), crucially also bearing a name of no ‘pastoral history’15. This is clearly an elegiac pattern, absent from previous pastoral, with the exception of the third Vergilian eclogue, where its function as an ‘elegiac modal intru11 Cf. also Vinchesi 1996, 76, Vallat 2006, http://. 12 Cf. Friedrich 1976, 22, Fey-Wickert 2002, 55 – 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 163. 13 Cf. also Kettemann 1977, 100, 102 (see also pp. 107 – 8), Gagliardi 1984, 30 – 1 and nn.3 (the gardening interests of the period as an interpretation of this choice; see also Perutelli 1976, 781 – 2, Vinchesi 1992, 152 and n.9, 1996, 35), 8, Stanzel 1989, 191, 195, Vinchesi 1991, 276, Schäfer 2001, 140, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 14 – 5, 164. 14 For the ‘unpastoral’ character of the erotic triangle in question, quite peculiar within an amoebaean boujokiasl¹r setting, cf. also Stanzel 1989, 192 and n.23, Schäfer 2001, 140: ‘Die Liebe zweier Sänger zu ein- und demselben Mädchen ist ein dem antiken bukolischen Wettstreit gänzlich fremdes Motiv’. 15 Vs. Crotale, the reading of N; see also Soraci 1997, 315 – 21, Fey-Wickert 2002, 54 – 5, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 164. For the ‘unpastoral’ character of the name Crocale, cf. also Friedrich 1976, 22.

216

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

sion’ into a ‘pastoral host-text’ has already been demonstrated (cf. chapter 2, pp. 100 – 3). The only other reference in previous pastoral to such a lovers’ triangle may occur in the ecphrasis of the two suitors in the jiss}biom of the first Theocritean idyll, where, however, it is a depiction about the general world, simply functioning as a foil to the ‘pastoral cabinet’ of the weaving boy imagery (cf. also chapter 2, p. 102 and n.63). Crucially, the elegiac colouring of the passage is also evident by the elegiac wording of the very first line of the eclogue, functioning as kind of programmatic declaration concerning ‘generic allegiance’: intactam Crocalen puer Astacus et puer Idas…dilexere diu (vv. 1 – 3) evokes Verg. Ecl. 2.1: formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin 16. This is the very eclogue where, as already remarked, cf. pp. 103, 142, 190, ‘pastoral dislocation’ looms large, with Corydon constructing an ‘elegiac discourse’ in a clearly ‘unpastoral’ mind-set, solus montibus et silvis studio iactabat inani (vv. 4 – 5), and reassuming ‘pastoral correctness’, the sexual looseness which is familiar in the pastoral world17, only at the end of the poem. The rapprochement with elegy is suggested not only by means of the intertextual reference to a ‘generically dubious’ eclogue, but also through the substitution of formosum with intactam. This change of wording brings the Calpurnian line significantly closer to the handling of Verg. Ecl. 2.1 by Propertius 2.34.73 – 4: felix intactum Corydon qui temptat Alexin / agricolae domini carpere delicias! 18. In other words, Calpurnius manages to imply his ‘generic flexibility’ not only by alluding to an ‘elegiac’ Vergilian eclogue, but also by means of an intertextual allusion to the reworking of this line in the hands of a purely elegiac poet. The construction in question is significantly repeated in a similar elegiac pattern (a puella besieged by two lovers) in another eclogue of elegiac character, the second eclogue of Nemesianus’, vv. 1 – 2: formosam Donacen puer Idas et puer Alcon ardebant (see chapter 9, pp. 298 – 9, where the argument is further elaborated). 16 Cf. also Stanzel 1989, 184, Fey-Wickert 2002, 53 – 4. 17 Whereas the Vergilian eclogue, functioning as a model for Calp 2, involves two lovers, Calpurnius adds an additional elegiac touch to his piece by substituting a liaison between two lovers with the elegiac triangle, as elaborated above, pp. 215 – 6. For the theme of the homosexual love-affair converting to a ‘straight’ love-experience and for the theme of the twosome turning into a threesome, cf. also Stanzel 1989, 184 – 5. For Alexis as a beloved’s name in Verg. Ecl. 2, belonging to the elegiac rather than pastoral tradition, cf. also Plato A.P. 7.100, Meleager A.P. 12.127 and Coleman 1977, 91. 18 Cf. Stanzel 1989, 187, Fey-Wickert 2002, 54.

The Prerequisites

217

The pathetic fallacy imagery also points to a ‘generic alteration’, if examined in its detail: Calpurnius accumulates several markers of the motif, constructing an image which at times exhibits a formalistic completeness to a much greater extent than its Theocritean and Vergilian counterparts; this is evident e. g. in the description of the animal life reacting to the orphic power of Idas’ and Astacus’ song, in vv. 10 – 11: cattle (v. 10: omne genus pecudum), wild beasts (v. 10: genus omne ferarum) and finally birds (v. 11: quodcumque vagis altum ferit aera pennis). Whereas in Theocritus and Vergil wild and tamed animals often feature in relevant situations (Theocr. 1.71 – 5 (with Friedrich 1976, 34 – 5), 4.12, Verg. Ecl. 5.25 – 8, 6.27 – 8, 8.3, 10.16, cf. also Calp. 4.60 – 1, 66 – 7), this is not the case with the fowling imagery of v. 1119, which appears in pastoral, apart from this Calpurnian instance, only in [Moschus] 3.46 – 9. Yet, despite the over-accumulation of traditional pastoral motifs (including that of the Theocritean distinction between tame and wild animals, bequeathed to Vergil in the case of his fifth eclogue (see chapter 4, pp. 162 – 3)), probably as a sign of ‘self-conscious belatedness’ (cf. e. g. the same procedure in Prop. 3.120), the wording by means of which the topos of the pathetic fallacy is rendered here has clear georgic overtones: v. 10 is modeled on Verg. G. 3.480: genus omne neci pecudum dedit, omne ferarum, while v. 11 seems to be molded on Verg. G. 1.406: quacumque…aethera pennis with a clausula favoured in the Ovidian epic21. Pastoral thematic with ‘unpastoral’ wording (georgic and Ovidian in this case): this is gradually developing as a ‘literary tendency’ of the author (see also chapter 7, pp. 244, 275 in particular; see also below pp. 218 – 9). In the standard generic pastoral location, the shady tree (holm-oak) (v. 12: umbrosa…sub ilice, cf. Theocr. 1.22 – 3, Verg. Ecl. 6.54, 7.1), 19 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 35. 20 When proclaiming his poetological credo, Propertius, as a late comer, similarly ‘telescopes’ / ‘zooms out’ and accumulates several intertexts of analogous poetological intentions and aspirations, namely: Hor. Carm. 3.30.7 – 8, 13 – 4, Verg. G. 3.8 ff., 17 ff., Lucr. 1.117 – 8, 925 – 30, Theocr. 16.48 ff., and finally Callimachus’ prologue to the Aetia; see also Camps 1985, 51. For the overaccumulation of motifs in Prop. 3.1, see especially Papanghelis 1994, 198 – 200. 21 Cf. Friedrich 1976, 35, Perutelli 1976, 782 and n.61, Kettemann 1977, 102 and n.11, Fey-Wickert 2002, 64 – 5, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 21, 166; see also Verdière 1954, 240, Gagliardi 1984, 30 and n.4. What is more the syntagm aera /e pennis is very common in Ovid; cf. Met. 1.466, 7.354, 379, 8.253, 10.159, 11.732 with Fey-Wickert 2002, 65.

218

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

shepherds meet with many representatives of the bucolic pantheon: Faunus (a god often identified with Pan22), Satyrs and the Nymphs, divided here into dry-foot wood Nymphs and watery-foot river Nymphs (vv. 13 – 4). All these deities appear separately in Theocritean (in their Greek divine equivalent of course, cf. Theocr. 1.77 ff.), post-Theocritean ([Moschus] 3.27 – 9, E.A. 19) and Vergilian pastoral (cf. Ecl. 5.20 – 3, 6.27 – 8, 10.21 – 30), in the context of pathetic fallacy imagery. However, this combination, although giving the impression of completeness (though the absence of the pastoral Apollo is remarkable), is crucially found once more only in Ovid, Met. 6.392 – 4. The Ovidian wording of the previous lines is thus complemented with the present Ovidian ‘epic’ imagery, crucially functioning as the backdrop for the depiction of the pastoral pantheon in its ‘generic gathering’, expressing the motif of sulp\heia t_m fkym. Ov. Met. 6.392 – 4 is, however, a highly ‘pastoral’ passage in Ovid’s Protean poem and constitutes a further instance of a ‘generic interplay’ between pastoral and epic, for ‘epic hexameters’ and ‘epic language’ (cf. e. g. the epic circumlocution Tritoniaca…harundine in v. 384, the epic compound ruricolae in v. 392, etc.23) are here ‘hosting’ Marsyas’ story, availing itself of clear bucolic markers (e. g. Marsyas’ satyr identity, the presence of Minerva’s pipes, the challenge to a musical match, a contest between the Satyr and Apollo, lament for a lost poet24). This very ‘generic interaction’ the Ovidian model seems to operate on further underscores the ‘generic ambivalence’ of the Calpurnian instance as well. Ovidian allusions are thus far from coincidental, since Ovid appears to function as a distinct and specific poetic model of reference and comparison in Calpurnian poetics, betraying the ‘generic comprehensiveness’ of the Calpurnian pastoral world. For example, in the fourth programmatic eclogue of the Calpurnian corpus, which deals mainly with genre-issues of pastoral as a foil to the emperor’s panegyric, Corydon’s (i. e. Calpurnius’) and Amyntas’ songs are considered by the umpire Meliboeus not simply as regular rustic lays bestowed to them as a gift by the sylvan deities (vv. 147 – 8), but also as a performance surpassing the sweetness (a distinct meta-linguistic term for poetics) of the honey that Pelignian swarms sip (cf. v. 151). This is a direct allusion to Ovid, who was born at Sulmo in the area of Peligni (cf. in detail chapter 22 Cf. also Stroh 1999, 559. 23 Cf. also Anderson 1972, 202 – 3. 24 Cf. also Hill 1992, 183.

The Prerequisites

219

7, pp. 270 – 1). So pastoral performance is here evaluated by a distinguished member of the ‘green cabinet’ not through reference to established pastoral models, but through comparison with a poet belonging to the norms of different literary genres, chiefly elegy and epic – although of a peculiar ‘generic character’. The pastoral imagery describing nature’s reaction to the sublime quality of Idas’ and Astacus’ performance is further enhanced by the common motif of the speeding torrents halting their courses (v. 15: et tenuere suos properantia flumina cursus, cf. also Ciris 233, [Tib.] 3.7.126 (= 4.1.126), Prop. 3.2.3 – 4, Hor. Carm. 1.12.9 – 10), which has the sanction of pastoral, being modeled on Verg. Ecl. 8.4: et mutata suos requierunt flumina cursus, where rivers changed and stayed their flow as a reaction to Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ song25. The abstinence motif in vv. 18 – 9, where bulls are indifferent to pasture and tread on it (neglectaque pascua tauri calcabant, cf. also Theocr. 4.14, [Moschus] 3.23 – 4, Verg. Ecl. 5.25 – 6, 8.2 – 3, Nemes. 2.29 – 3026), is another pastoral staple; but the very image of pastoral empathy to the quality of pastoral performance is complemented by activities opposed to pastoral ideals, and adding in their turn to the feeling of ‘generic fluidity’ discernible throughout the poem. To the long line of ‘unpastoral’ symptoms of the impending songcontest may also be added the idea of silence reigning in the hills (vv. 16 – 7), caused by the east winds’ failing to shake the foliage of the trees; this is an ‘anti-bucolic situation’, standing in opposition to the resounding liveliness and verve of pastoral (in ‘generic terms’) nature of mainly the Vergilian eclogues, cf. 8.22 – 427. Negative associations with respect to the neoteric principles of the pastoral genre are evoked through the image of the bee keeping off the nectar of the flowers, as a result of the two singers’ orphic powers (vv. 19 – 20: illis etiam certantibus ausa est / deadala nectareos apis intermittere flores). The bee is a well-known poetological symbol of the poet, and its depiction here as a craftsman (daedala) further alludes to the process of poetic composition28 ; furthermore, both the bee and the sweetness of the flowers are also key-words 25 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 137, Paladini 1956, 523, Messina 1975, 54, Pearce 1990, 46, Fey-Wickert 2002, 69 – 70, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 167 – 8. 26 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 71 – 2, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 168; see also Verdière 1954, 137. 27 Cf. also Davis 1987, 34, Papanghelis 1995, 90 – 1. 28 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 72: ‘Calpurnius hingegen bezeichnet durch das Adjektiv daedalus den Kunstsinn der Biene; dieser richtet sich…auf die Dichtung’.

220

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

denoting poetry of Callimachean aesthetics, as evidenced by programmatic Callimachean texts (e. g. the prologue to the Aetia and the coda of the Hymn to Apollo, as elaborated in detail elsewhere – cf. especially chapter 1, pp. 66 – 7, 84). The dissociation of these two rather obvious neoteric poetological symbols could be read as a move towards antineoteric attitudes29. Last but not least, note the georgic wording evidenced by the use of the adjective daedalus (cf. Verg. G. 4.179), instead for the regular sedulus, to denote the constructive abilities of a bee30. Interestingly, even the way in which the succession of performances is decided also points to unusual ‘generic directions’: according to the pastoral singing norm, the order of appearance, all-important as it puts the second contestant at a distinct disadvantage, obliging him to adapt and improve on the topics of the first, is also an issue in the present eclogue. By the standards of the previous pastoral tradition of the amoebaean boujokiasl|r, the choice is either made by lot (as in the case of the eight pseudotheocritean idyll (8.30)) or is the result of a voluntary giving way of a singer, who lets his opponent sing first (cf. Verg. Ecl. 5). Elsewhere, the decision is also made on the basis of who was the first to start the altercation (Theocr. 6), or rests with the umpire or some other character of the pastoral setting (Verg. Ecl. 3, Eins. 1, Calp. 4 / [Theocr.] 9); twice the agent of this decision remains unspecified (Verg. Ecl. 7, Nemes. 2). In all the above cases, however, a reference to the decision-making is offered in the text, and is occasionally coupled with the choice of pledges, as fully elaborated in the introductory chapter, pp. 52 – 3. In this eclogue, on the contrary, although the judgment is associated with the umpire’s verdict, the means for this decision have no intertextual references within the bucolic corpus; thus in vv. 21 ff. the umpire, crucially called Thyrsis, a name often read as persona of Vergil as a pastoral poet, and even sitting under the generically characteristic shady tree, lays down new rules and puts forward an ‘unpastoral’ proposal: the succession of the singers will be determined through the traditional Roman game of mora31. Similarly, the usual pledges for the contest are 29 Vs. Schröder 1991, 44 who thinks that ‘Calpurnius…nicht mehr auf die Auseinandersetzung mit poetischen Grundsatzfragen verwiesen war’. 30 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 72. 31 Cf. also Messina 1975, 54, Friedrich 1976, 41. For the rather ‘unpastoral’ character of the mora decision, cf. also Schäfer 2001, 143 and n.13.

The Singing Match

221

rejected, in favour of the abstract notions32 of glory for the victor (v. 24: laudem victor), an epic rather than a pastoral aspiration, and of reproach for the defeated (v. 24: opprobria victus). Once again a traditional pastoral coating is associated with a formalistic neotericism.

The Singing Match Idas wins in the mora and the singing match begins; this fluctuation between the ‘generically traditional’ and the ‘generically novel’ recurs throughout this !c~m. In vv. 28 – 35 both singers invoke the god of their poetic inspiration and professional protection33, but in both cases a clear inversion of the roles usually adopted in earlier Roman pastoral by the deities invoked is observable. Idas sings about Silvanus wreathing his temples (here with pine leaves), a gesture often associated with poetic excellence in the ‘green cabinet’ (cf. Verg. Ecl. 7.25 – 6, Calp. 4.56 – 7). More importantly, the pastoral singer creates, through the prophesying words of the god, the image of the slender pipe (v. 31: levis…fistula) growing on a slopping reed. The scenery unequivocally symbolises poetic initiation and succession, as suggested by the motif of the god inspiring poetry (note the use of levis) and the image of the flute as a gift. Clear parallels occur in both Vergil and Calpurnius, where the handing over of a pastoral pipe appears in the background of a ‘pastoral succession’, cf. Verg. Ecl. 2.36 – 8 (Damoetas and Corydon), 5.85 (Menalcas and Mopsus), 6.67 – 9 (Linus, as the deputy of the Muses, and Gallus), Calp. 4.59 – 63 (Tityrus, Iollas and Corydon)34. Levis, the well-known catchword denoting Callimachean and neoteric sensibilities, complements the setting and thus Idas’ fistula, a metonymy for pastoral poetry35, is described as aspiring to the slender poetics of Roman Callimacheanism, following the standards of Vergilian pastoral poetics, as already explored (cf. introduction, pp. 32 – 4). However, in the previous tradition, it is not Silvanus but primarily Apollo and the Muses that carry out this task in similar scenes of poetic initiation: the instances of Hesiod Th. 22 – 3, cf. also Call. Aet. 2.1 – 32 Cf. Stanzel 1989, 196. 33 Cf. also Schäfer 2001, 143 – 4. 34 For the motif of the flute as a gift and its associations with poetic succession, cf. mainly Papanghelis 1995, 156 – 7, Fey-Wickert 2002, 79 – 80. 35 Cf. also Pearce 1990, 48.

222

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

2 Pf. (Muses), the prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia (1.22 – 4 Pf.) and its reworking in the sixth Vergilian eclogue (vv. 1 – 12 – Apollo) easily come to mind, cf. also Theocr. 5.80 – 3 (an appeal to both the Muses and Apollo), Verg. Ecl. 3.62 – 3 (Apollo), 7.21 – 2 (Nymphs, that is the pastoral Muses). Thus it is not without significance that the linguistic syntagm Idas uses in v. 28: me Silvanus amat, probably modeled on Verg. Ecl. 3.62: me Phoebus amat 36, substitutes the expected deities of poetic induction by Silvanus, a god who does appear in pastoral, but mainly as presiding over arvorum pecorisque (Verg. A. 8.601, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 10.24 – 5, Nemes. 2.56), and seems thus to be rather unrelated to issues of poetic succession and initiation. Note also that, whereas the flute that awaits Idas is described as slender, the opposite holds for the prophecy of the god himself, crucially described as of no slender import (v. 30: non leve carmen) 37. Idas thus seems to have intentionally committed the faux pas of invoking a god unrelated to (pastoral) poetic epiphanies; crucially, Astacus commits exactly the reverse ‘error’: he appeals to a deity of rather a poetic caliber, the Nymphs, for protection in menial and georgic tasks having nothing to do with poetry. Astacus displays a rather ‘georgic outlook’ and interests throughout the eclogue38 : the Italian rustic deities Flora and Pomona sport with him (vv. 32 – 3) and are combined with the Nymphs, the pastoral goddesses par excellence (cf. also Verg. 36 Cf. Cesareo 1931, 45, Keene 1969, 69, Messina 1975, 54, Friedrich 1976, 42, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 169. 37 For a poetological colouring in the passage under discussion, see also Verdière 1954, 241, Friedrich 1976, 42 – 3, Davis 1987, 34, 52 and n.19, Stanzel 1989, 190 – 1 and n.17, Magnelli 2006, 472 – 3, Vinchesi 2009, 151. 38 One should of course take into account that Astacus is a gardener and gardening, at least in Vergil G. 4, is a marginal activity in the ‘georgic world’. Hence, from this perspective, one might argue that the above designation, ‘georgic outlook’, may here oversimplify the situation. Nonetheless, even in Vergil’s praeteritio (G. 4.116 – 48), some scholars have detected a skeleton for a possible fifth book of the Georgics dealing with the art of gardening (cf. especially Thomas 1988, 167 – 8). Columella, on the other hand, taking literally Vergil’s G. 4.148: aliis post me memoranda relinquo, takes over from Vergil (cf. especially 10 praef. 3) and treats gardening chiefly in the tenth book of his work, significantly written in dactylic hexameters, thus suggesting a sense of a ‘generic sequel’ to Vergilian Georgics, and not in prose as elsewhere in the De Re Rustica. Taking all the above caveats into consideration and despite the fact that gardening may function as a marginal aspect of the Vergilian ‘georgic world’, I still believe that horticulture is by no means a pastoral pursuit but rather forms part of the georgic interests, with the reservations, of course, already expressed.

The Singing Match

223

Ecl. 3.9, 5.74 – 5) often associated in the pastoral corpus, as already observed elsewhere, pp. 18, 22 – 3, 69, 104, 112, 157 – 8, 193, 198, with pastoral song, as a substitute of the Muses in their function as deities of poetic inspiration (cf. Verg. Ecl. 7.21 – 2, 10.1). However, these deities are regarded by Astacus simply as guarantors of his professional prosperity, securing the fountains which are indispensable for watering his orchards (vv. 34 – 5, see also Verg. G. 4.32, 120, 12639). The impression of ‘pastoral orthodoxy’, secured by the appeal to the rustic pantheon, (though significantly not appearing in the Vergilian bucolic oeuvre with the exception of the Nymphs), and by Flora’s adorning Astacus’ locks with pale green grass, a gesture reminiscent of Aegle in Verg. Ecl. 6.21 – 240 painting Silenus’ face, is only superficial: the close association of the poetic deities (i. e., the Nymphs) with georgic tasks is to be read as a significant ‘generic alteration’ from the earlier ‘pastoral norm’. The next exchange of quatrains gives a clear impression of a ‘generic branching out’, a movement towards a ‘more inclusive’ later development of the pastoral form, as it furnishes proof of Idas’ notable georgic interests: the herdsman, the representative of ‘traditional pastoral’ as opposed to the upstart, in ‘generic terms’, gardener Astacus, concerns himself with issues of husbandry, clearly belonging to the ‘georgic code’ rather than to pastoral preoccupations, which involve, as often discussed, cf. especially pp. 17 – 8, mainly pastoral song and its prerequisites and not the menial tasks of every day professional life. Idas sings about flock breeding, and in particular about the way a lamb of varied colour testifies to the mating of a black ram with a white ewe (vv. 36 – 9). Script. R.R. abound with similar occupations (Var. rust. 2.2.4, Colum. 7.3.1, Plin. Nat. 8.189, see also Verg. G. 3.387 – 9041); what is more, the very term cultum (gregis) (v. 36) that the Italian goddess Pales teaches to the shepherd is a terminus technicus having intertextually links with texts of clear georgic interests, cf. Verg. G. 1.3 – 4, 4.559, Colum. 1 praef. 32, 6 praef. 3 – 442. Pales belongs to the pastoral pantheon: she appears in Verg. Ecl. 5.34 – 5 leaving the fields with Apollo, another eminent pastoral deity, as a sign of grief for Daphnis’ loss; hence in Vergil Pales acts within a traditional pastoral setting, grieving over the 39 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 43 – 4, Fey-Wickert 2002, 85 – 6. 40 Cf. Di Salvo 1990a, 273. 41 Cf. also Keene 1969, 71, Fey-Wickert 2002, 19, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 172. 42 Cf. Keene 1969, 71, Friedrich 1976, 45, Fey-Wickert 2002, 18, 87 – 8.

224

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

passing away of a great pastoral singer, and she also acts in character in Nemes. 1.68, where she is shown to offer bowls of milk in the company of the pastoral pantheon again (Apollo, Fauns, Nymphs, Muses, Flora), significantly as a farewell to Meliboeus, an old and renowned member of the ‘green cabinet’. In Calpurnius, on the other hand, this deity is charged with a clear georgic (cf. also Pales in Verg. G. 3.1, 294) assignment (cf. also Calp. 4.102 – 6, 5.24 – 5). This mingling of pastoral with georgic features is meta-linguistically reflected in the imagery of the lines: Calpurnian pastoral could be likened to the varicoloured lamb born to parents of different colour, yet able to testify to both his progenitors (pastoral and georgic) 43. A similar meta-language of poetological import may be read in the case of Astacus’ grafted trees, trees growing unfamiliar leaves (ignotas frondes) and fruits of a different species (non gentilia poma, v. 41) 44. The imagery may be understood meta-poetically as denoting a new generic artistic formation (note here the iteration of ars mea in vv. 40, 42), suggested by the mingling of pastoral and georgic as exemplified in Astacus’ lines, where several georgic technical terms and georgic concerns in general are to be met with: induit, v. 40, insita, praecoquibus, v. 43, cf. also Colum. 5.11.1, Plin. Nat. 17.102, 104, Verg. G. 2.33 – 4, 78 – 80, etc.45. The remark acquires further weight if one takes into account that the term gentilia < genus in the sense of ‘belonging to different species’ seems to be coined by Calpurnius as a substitute for non sua in Verg. G. 2.82: novas frondes et non sua poma, a line which probably functions as 43 One might of course argue here that menial tasks, whether bucolic or georgic, are normally referred to in brackets; i. e., they become quoted as material, subject matter for song, and are thus neutralised as features of the negotium, within a pastoral form that thematically seems to be growing more ‘omnivorous’, as time goes on. Be that as it may, this emphasis on material of specific technical colouring, although ‘citational’, to an extent not found in pre-Calpurnian bucolic, suggests a clear ‘generic reorientation’ of the bucolic form, ‘a reorientation’, at least, towards novel ‘generic favourites’. 44 For the alternative reading genitalia, cf. Di Salvo 1991, 310. 45 Cf. Verdière 1954, 140, Paladini 1956, 527, Keene 1969, 71 – 2, Friedrich 1976, 45 – 6, Kettemann 1977, 101, 104, Amat 1991, 103, Vinchesi 1992, 152 and nn.10, 11, 1996, 81, Fey-Wickert 2002, 18 – 9, 89 – 91, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 172 – 3. Cf. also the meta-poetic function of nota in Verg. Ecl. 1.51: flumina nota as a further ‘reflexive annotation’, ‘troping allusion as recognition’ (cf. Hinds 1998, 8 – 10, Papanghelis 2006, 372 and n.10) of the previous familiar pastoral ‘generic identity’, which Tityrus manages to hold on to in opposition to the dispossessed Meliboeus.

The Singing Match

225

the model of this Calpurnian line, as Fey-Wickert 2002, 90 has convincingly remarked46. The word appears, according to the ThLL VI 2, 1813, 73 – 8, for the first time in the present Calpurnian pastoral, and alludes, by means of its etymological connections, to the ‘generic quality’ or ‘divergence’ of Calpurnius’ bucolics, especially in Calp. 247, where an extended association of pastoral with georgics is attempted. Another indication of the validity of this poetological reading is the use of the term ignotas, instead of the less evocative novas of the Vergilian intertext, suggesting in its turn the notion of the ‘unknown’, the ‘alien’, which has clear poetological associations in relation to the Callimachean – neoteric poetological outlook of Roman pastoral: this impression of the ‘estranged’ suggests, as often discussed (see especially chapter 3, pp. 139 – 40), ‘anti-neoteric deviations’ and thus testifies to the lapse of the new pastoral from a traditional pastoral neoteric ideal. An ‘unpastoral’ attitude combined with signs of ‘poetological aberration’ from Callimachean ideals is also pre-eminent in the following exchange (vv. 44 – 51): Astacus keeps harping on the georgic theme, singing about planting and watering (vv. 48 – 51, cf. also Verg. G. 4.32, 112 – 5 and several georgic technical terms such as pangitur, v. 49 (Var. rust. 1.43, Colum. 3.18.1, Plin. Nat. 17.156), area, v. 49 (Cato agr. 151.3, Colum. 2.10.26), plantaria, v. 51 (Verg. G. 2.27, Plin. Nat. 13.37 et al.48)), while Idas’ song is about lopping branches and feeding young flocks, once more a georgic concern (cf. also Var. rust. 2.2.15 – 7, putare as a terminus technicus, v. 44 (Cato agr. 32.1, Var. rust. 1.36, Verg. G. 2.407, Colum. 11.2.41) 49). Moreover, Idas sings about a frondatio, censured in the pastoral community as it deprives ‘pastoral space’ / poetry from its basic ‘generic prerequisite’, shade, as discussed in the case of the ninth Vergilian eclogue; cf. chapter 5, pp. 204 – 5. The salix (willow), a common pastoral tree (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.53 – 4, 77 – 8, 3.65, 83, 5.16, 10.40, Calp. 3.14, 19, 68, 5.110, Nemes. 1.6 – 7), is crucially described as tener, v. 44, and strikingly, is presented as having its branches chopped off. Thus a frondatio, itself ‘unpastoral’ in character, is furthermore exercised upon teneras salices, with 46 Cf. also Novelli 1980, 52, Vinchesi 1992, 152, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 172; see also Verdière 1954, 241. 47 Cf. also Clément-Tarantino 2006, http://. 48 Cf. Keene 1969, 72 – 3, Messina 1975, 55, Kettemann 1977, 101, 102 and n.11, 104, Fey-Wickert 2002, 94 – 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 174. 49 Cf. Friedrich 1976, 46 – 7, Amat 1988, 80, 1991, 12, 103, Vinchesi 1992, 154, Fey-Wickert 2002, 19, 92 – 4, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 173 – 4.

226

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

an intentional use of the Callimachean catchword: it is not only pastoral typology that is at stake here but also the neoteric character of the poetry that displays it. The next two amoebaean quatrains (vv. 52 – 9) transport the reader to the ‘elegiac realm’: resorting to common ‘elegiac tactics’50 (cf. e. g. [Tib.] 3.1.15 ff., 3.3.1 ff.), both contestants ask for divine help in order to secure Crocale’s love, that is to ensure erotic bliss and reciprocated love, the elegiac value par excellence. As a response to the god’s ‘elegiac help’, Idas consecrates a grove (nemus) which, apart from its religious associations (cf. OLD 2), is closely connected with poetic inspiration, including bucolic poetry, as elaborated by Hunter 2006, 7 ff.; cf. also chapter 4, p. 155. But this religious location of poetological import is associated here with sacral expressions not found in previous pastoral: the ritual sending away of the uninitiated within an erotic setting (v. 55: ite procul – sacer est locus – ite profani). On the contrary, the image complemented with the ite procul syntagm appears in other literary genres, especially, yet not exclusively, in the elegiac corpus, chiefly as a parody of ritual diction (cf. Tib. 1.1.75 – 6, 2.4.15, 20, [Tib.] 3.4.3, 3.6.7, Prop. 4.6.9, cf. also Tib. 1.9.51, Ov. Am. 2.1.3 – 4) 51. Accordingly the elegiac appeal to the gods is accompanied by an offer exhibiting a further common elegiac motif, thus adding to the ‘generic diversification’ shown by the shepherd-singer. This ‘elegiac appeal – deviation’ is traceable in Astacus’ quatrain as well, where one should further take notice of the first and foremost elegiac use of urere in v. 56: urimur in Crocalen 52 ; the verb in the sense of amare et dolere, as here, has a very good elegiac register (cf. Catul. 72.5, Tib. 2.4.6, Ov. Am. 2.4.12 et al.; see also Prop. 3.9.45, Hor. Carm. 1.19.5, OLD 6a) and is, additionally, associated in Vergilian pastoral with the ‘elegiac discourse’ of Corydon in the second Vergilian eclogue, v. 68: me tamen urit amor, as well as the ‘elegiac turn’ exhibited by Daphis’ urban love-affair in Verg. Ecl. 8.83: Daphnis me malus urit (cf. chapter 3, p. 149, see also Calp. 3.7 – 8: uror, Iolla, uror, of Lycidas’ 50 Cf. also Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 175. 51 Cf. Verdière 1954, 141, Korzeniewski 1971, 23, Fey-Wickert 2002, 100, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 175. Cf. also Mart. 14.47.1. 52 Cf. Pichon 1966, 301, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 175: ‘verbo tipico del sermo amatorius’. In the Aeneid as well the verb occurs in the also ‘elegising’ love-story of the fourth book, v. 68: uritur infelix Dido; cf. also chapter 9, p. 304 and n.33.

The Singing Match

227

amor for Phyllis, a further instance of an elegiac intrusion in pastoral53). Yet, although for Idas the ‘elegiac outlook’ is complemented with the sacral imagery of the shepherd’s offer, Astacus’ sacral offerings reassert ‘pastoral correctness’ and secure once again a contrast between pastoral tradition and ‘generic novelty’, as often in Calpurnian pastoral. Astacus’ offering is a beechen bowl (v. 59: faginus) 54, a gift of programmatic importance in bucolic poetry, reminiscent of the jiss}biom of the first programmatic Theocritean idyll, symbolising the supreme poetic quality of pastoral. What is more, this emblematic symbol is here presented as made of beech-wood, a further ‘generic marker’ of pastoral (cf. chapter 5, pp. 188 – 9), similarly to the pocula…fagina of the third Vergilian eclogue (vv. 36 – 7), which function as the prize of the bucolic song-contest of the eclogue. These bowls also suggest traditional pastoral values, which both contestants fall short of, and therefore, as shown in chapter 2, pp. 87 ff., fail to acquire them. The locus amoenus setting within which the bowl appears (vine-clad elms, chilly brook, lilies, vv. 57 – 9) in Calp. 2 completes the pastoral ‘generic background’ of Astacus’ elegiac appeal. Crucially, this partial reinstatement of ‘(traditional) bucolic’ is effected through Astacus the gardener, that is the novel character in ‘generic terms’, and not through the herdsman Idas, who can be seen as the representative of ‘traditional bucolic poetry’ who has evidently ‘deviated’ towards the ‘elegiac realm’; this points again to a sense of ‘generic fluidity’ sensible throughout the Calpurnian eclogue. From v. 60 onwards it is Theocr. 11 and its Vergilian adaptation, Ecl. 2, that function as the primary models for Calp. 2. All motifs appearing in these two intertexts (the appeal for sharing rustic lodgings (Theocr. 11.42 – 9, Verg. Ecl. 2.28 – 35), the account of goods and chattels (Theocr. 11.34 – 7, Verg. Ecl. 2.20 – 2), the donation of gifts (The53 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 152. 54 For an account of the different readings of faginus, i. e., beechen bowl (scyphus, crater, poculum, etc.), beechen statue or beech tree, cf. especially Armstrong 1986, 118, Horsfall 1997, 190, Fey-Wickert 2002, 103 – 5, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 176. For the view adopted here, i. e., the first alterative, cf. also Theocr. 5.58 – 9, Tib. 1.10.8, Keene 1969, 74, Korzeniewski 1971, 91, Leach 1975, 211, Vinchesi 1996, 83; see also Verdière 1954, 241 – 2, Amat 1991, 17 and n.35. For faginus as a statue, cf. also Verdière 1954, 241, Castiglioni 1955, 19 – 20 vs. Mahr 1964, 187 ff. Faginus both in the sense of a ‘beechen figure’ and with the meaning of the substantive fagus (cf. also Svennung 1935, 145 and n.3, Pearce 1990, 50, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, loc. cit.) seem less compelling options.

228

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

ocr. 11.40 – 1, Verg. Ecl. 2.36 – 55), the self presentation-motif (Theocr. 11.31 – 3, Verg. Ecl. 2.25 – 7)) have their counterpart in the present Calpurnian pastoral (vv. 60 – 1, 68 – 75, 76 – 83, 84 – 91 respectively) with one exception: instead of reference to the piping or singing excellence of the herdsman (Theocr. 11.38 – 40, Verg. Ecl. 2.23 – 4), Calpurnius prefers the topic of religious piety (vv. 62 – 7) 55, a marginal pastoral activity in comparison to singing, the ultimate pastoral value, something which betrays once more the ‘generic re-orientation’ of Calpurnian pastoral. Also, the choice of ‘generically doubtful’ intertexts (Verg. Ecl. 2 exhibiting elegiac sensibility and Theocr. 11 assimilating comic markers, cf. the relevant discussion in chapter 5, p. 200, Hunter 1999, 241; see also pp. 216, 230) further point to the ‘generic ambivalence’ of the Calpurnian pastoral song-contest. In vv. 60 ff. Idas asserts his pastoral identity, when describing himself as a rustic (v. 61: rusticus est…Idas) in his apostrophe to Crocale56 ; this pastoral identity of his is also conveyed by means of his presentation as non…barbarus (v. 61). Whereas rusticus denotes the dweller of ‘pastoral space’, barbarus, on the other hand, a characterisation that Idas denies, is a term qualifying the opponent of the ‘green cabinet’. A clear indication of this is the first programmatic Vergilian eclogue, where the term barbarus is applied to the newcomer miles, who evicts Meliboeus and is thus responsible for the latter’s alienation from the pastoral world (vv. 70 – 1). Idas, however, chooses to establish his pastoral identity not by recurring to the pastoral motif of musical excellence, but through marginal functions of the bucolic space, namely offerings of religious piety (cf. Theocr. 5.81 – 3, Verg. Ecl. 1.7 – 8, 42 – 3, 5.65 – 80, 7.29 – 36), and, what is more, in rather elegiac settings. Idas mentions the festival of Pales, Palilia or Parilia (cf. Ov. Fast. 4.721 ff.); although a rural celebration (cf. Ov. Fast. 4.723: pastoria sacra), the festival has no parallels in the bucolic corpus, in opposition to its presence in elegiac poetry (cf. Tib. 2.5.87 – 104, see also 1.1.35 – 6, Prop. 4.1.19 – 20, 4.4.73 – 8). The leaning towards elegy is thus revealed in the intertexts that Idas chooses both when claiming (vv. 52 ff.) his beloved and when expressing his piety. Besides, the very term rusticus, although aiming to affirm Idas as inhabitant of the bucolic space, appears, from a ‘generic point of view’, in ‘generically dodgy’ instances, i. e., in contexts where pastoral seems to diverge towards elegiac trends: Idas’ immediate intertext is Verg. 55 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 105. 56 Cf. Cesareo 1931, 52, Friedrich 1976, 51.

The Singing Match

229

Ecl. 2.56: rusticus es, Corydon 57, an apostrophe uttered by Corydon when, in the guise of an elegiac suitor, he hankers after the favours of the urban young Alexis (cf. also Calp 2.60 < Verg. Ecl. 2.2958). What is more, the term rusticus has ominous connotations as to the outcome of a love-affair, as it is frequently associated with the failure of a suitor. It is used by Corydon of the second Vergilian eclogue in his self-presentation, when realising that his rural background is the main cause of his erotic frustration. Another example is [Theocr.] 20.3 – 4, where the kiss of a herdsman is rejected as coming from a bouj|kor, cf. also Nemes. 2.70 – 1. A further indication of Idas’ lack of skill as a pastoral singer is his choice of sacrifice: although bloodless offerings are the order of the day in the Parilia (cf. Sol. 1.19: observatum deinceps, ne qua hostia Parilibus caederetur, ut dies iste a sanguine purus esset, Ov. Fast. 4.743 – 659), Idas sings about the sacrifice of a lamb (vv. 62 – 3), crucially having its counterpart in the Vergilian pastoral corpus, Verg. Ecl. 1.7 – 8, cf. also Eins. 2.15 – 6, but not associated with the Pales festivals60. Astacus responds with bloodless offerings, which have the sanction of earlier pastoral (apart from the primitias, v. 65, for liba, v. 65, cf. Verg. Ecl. 7.3361, for rorantes…favos, liquentia mella, v. 66, cf. Theocr. 5.59), to the Lares of the gardens as a distinct divine group and to Priapus in particular, in consequence of his profession (vv. 64 – 7). But although offers to Priapus, as here v. 65: fingere liba Priapo, do appear in Vergil (Ecl. 7.3362 : haec te liba, Priape, albeit with negative connotations, since Thyrsis has lost the poetic contest due to his lack of clear pastoral-neoteric outlook), Lares rituals do not appear in the Vergilian pastoral but instead often come up in the pastoral elegies of Tibullus (Tib. 1.1.19 – 20, 1.3.34, 1.10.15, 25 ff., 2.1.60; see also 2.5.20, 42).

57 Cf. Verdière 1954, 142, Friedrich 1976, 49, Fey-Wickert 2002, 109 – 10. See also Messina 1975, 56 – 7. 58 Cf. Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 177. 59 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 112, who thinks that Idas’ sacral offering is modeled on Tib. 1.1.23: agna cadet, transferred from a ritual in honour of the Lares to the Parilia. 60 Cf. Cesareo 1931, 47 – 8 and n.1, Latte 1960, 88, Fey-Wickert 2002, 112, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 177 vs. De Sipio 1935, 79 and n.2 and Messina 1975, 57 accepting Calpurnius’ statement at face value. See also Friedrich 1976, 50, 101 and n.110. 61 Cf. Keene 1969, 75. 62 Cf. also Di Salvo 1990a, 276.

230

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

Thus a ‘generically awry’ pastoral intertext is here combined with the interests of pastoral elegy. The following lines (vv. 68 – 75) develop the motif of a singer’s pride in his possessions as a means of working upon the beloved’s feelings and mind. Idas sings about his multitude of lambs and ewes providing him with fleece, and about his rich cheese, all at Crocale’s disposition, pressed throughout the year (vv. 68 – 71), while Astacus describes the rich harvest of his garden, also destined to function as an erotic gift for Crocale (vv. 72 – 5). The motif appears in pastoral as early as Theocr. 11.34 – 763, where the Cyclops tries to charm Galatea by relating the number of animals as well as the dairy he has at his disposal. Yet even in the case of Polyphemus, the comic, in ‘generic terms’, character of the incident, drawn from Attic comedy (cf. Antiphanes fr. 131 K–A64), has long been recognised. Furthermore, the Roman adaptation of this scene by Vergil (the reference to caseus (v. 70) rather than to lac as in Vergil (Ecl. 2.20) points to a Theocritean adaptation in the Calpurnian case, Id. 11.35 – 765) occurs in a setting where a movement towards elegiac erotic feelings is to be discerned: in Ecl. 2.19 – 22 again, when Corydon, as an elegiac suitor, tries to win over Alexis’ affections by mentioning his fortune66. Apart from their generically ‘unpastoral’ feel, similarly to rusticus above, p. 229, the two intertexts bode ill for Idas’ erotic success, since in both of them the suitor is rejected. A perhaps significant variation 63 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 242, Pearce 1990, 51 – 2, Di Salvo 1990a, 275 – 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 179. 64 Cf. Hunter 1999, 233. 65 Cf. also Verdière 1966, 168, Keene 1969, 76, Messina 1975, 58, Friedrich 1976, 51 – 2; see further Cesareo 1931, 52, Dehon 1993, 206. Paladini 1956, 529 also reads here a contamination of Verg. Ecl. 1.34: pinguis…premeretur caseus and Verg. Ecl. 2.22. 66 The motif does also significantly appear in the third Calpurnian eclogue, the elegiac character of which is generally acknowledged in the relevant bibliography, cf. especially Friedrich 1976, 62 – 3, Vinchesi 1991, 259 – 76, Fey-Wickert 2002, 22 – 9 and passim. Thus Lycidas advertises his rustic possessions (bulls, heifers, calves) for the sake of his beloved Phyllis in opposition to his erotic rival, Mopsus (vv. 63 – 9). In a similar vein Nemes. 2.35 – 6 has Idas exhibit a similar elegiac sensibility, when trying to charm his beloved Donace by praising his rustic wealth (a thousand heifers, milk-pails that never run out); the lines are modeled on the elegiac intertext of Calp. 3 and are complemented with further elegiac motifs, as is the kiss in vv. 37 – 8, given by a lover during his musical performance (cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 466); for the elegiac character of this motif, cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 25, 198. See also in detail chapter 9, pp. 308 – 9.

The Singing Match

231

with respect to the intertext, which may also betray a ‘generic deviation’ from ‘traditional pastoral’, is the fact that whereas [Theocritus]’ and Vergil’s flocks are Sicilian (cf. [Theocr.] 8.56, Verg. Ecl. 2.21: mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae), Calpurnius’ ewes are qualified as Tarentine (v. 69: Tarentinae…matres), famous for the quality of their wool, cf. Var. rust. 2.2.18, Colum. 7.2.3, 7.4.467. The term ‘Sicilian’ has strong ‘generic associations’, evoking as a ‘generic term’ Theocritean, Greek post-Theocritean and Vergilian pastoral (cf. introduction, pp. 11 – 2, 22, 25, 33). In fact, Calpurnius himself may have acquired the cognomen Siculus, marking him as a successor of both Theocritus and Vergil, cf. pp. 37 – 868. This change from Sicily to south Italy may be read as a further sign for Calpurnius’ going away from the pastoral tradition, as known mainly from Theocritus, post-Theocritean Greek pastoral and Vergil. Astacus’ topics and wording also show a tendency to approach other literary genres: As Fey-Wickert 2002, 122 has convincingly shown, lines 72 – 3 follow the elegiac model of Catul. 61.206 – 10: ille pulveris Africi / siderumque micantium/ subducat numerum prius, / qui vestri numerare volt / multa milia ludi69. The motif of selecting fruits for a loved one has its pastoral intertext in Verg. Ecl. 2.51: ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala70 ; but this intertext also has elegiac connotations, as it is associated with the elegiac transformation of Corydon, before his final resolution to return to the ‘pastoral norm’. What is more, Astacus’ intertext is no less ill-omened concerning erotic success than Idas’: Corydon, the intertext of Ecl. 2.51 fails to win the favours of Alexis. Thus ‘generic versatility’ and ominous erotic connotations are combined in Astacus’ lines as well. A similar ‘departure’ from ‘traditional pastoral’ is detectable in the gifts that are presented to Crocale in the following verses (vv. 76 – 83): Idas offers to his sweetheart pails of curdled milk (v. 77: sume tamen calathos nutanti lacte coactos) and promises fleeces (v. 78: vellera) in the period between the spring equinox and the middle of summer (vv. 78 – 9). 67 Cf. also Cesareo 1931, 52 and n.1, Keene 1969, 75 – 6, Pearce 1990, 52, Amat 1991, 104, Vinchesi 1996, 85, Fey-Wickert 2002, 118, 120 – 1 who yet fail to see the poetological nuances of the change. See also Dalby 2000, 66. 68 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 1, Di Salvo 1990, 24. 69 Mainly on the basis of two linguistic parallels, namely the Calpurnian qui numerare velit alluding to the Catullan qui…numerare volt and the Calpurnian citius numerabit probably alluding to the Catullan subducat numerum prius. See also Verdière 1954, 242. 70 Cf. Verdière 1954, 242, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 179. Fey-Wickert 2002, 119 sees in Astacus’ offerings an Ovidian influence, namely Ov. Met. 13.812 – 20.

232

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

However, although fleece as an erotic gift has its parallels in pastoral (in the fifth Theocritean idyll, in the context of an amoebaean boujokiasl¹r too, vv. 98 – 9, lakaj¹m p|jom is offered), the same cannot be said for the curdled milk, crucially appearing in vv. 86 – 7 of the idyll in question but not as a love-gift71. What is more, the real / traditional pastoral erotic present, that of the fleeces, is associated in Idas’ promise with georgic information, concerning the proper period for shearing according to the Script. R.R. (cf. also Var. rust. 2.11.6 – 9, Colum. 7.4.7, Pallad. 5.6, 6.8, 7.672), thus complementing the georgic image of the parched field at the beginning of Idas’ lines, v. 7673. Astacus (vv. 80 – 3) offers fruits (Chian figs, chestnuts) as love-gifts, something which has its parallels in the pastoral world; but the specific intertextual models, Theocr. 3.10 – 11 and Verg. Ecl. 2.51 – 374, are again instances of a ‘generic leaning’ towards comedy or elegy, as already shown (cf. also chapter 5 for the case of the third idyll, pp. 194 – 5; see also p. 216). Furthermore, chestnuts as an erotic present are a direct allusion to Verg. Ecl. 2.51 – 3, where the fruits are sanctioned as love-offers; but this intertext, apart from its elegiac disposition (being about an elegiac lover trying to persuade the urbane Alexis to accept as gifts fruits, once the delight of a rustic Amaryllis), also once again bears negative associations as to the outcome of Astacus’ erotic appeal. In the following exchange a central value of the bucolic space, formo75 sitas , with its meta-linguistic poetological implications (cf. chapter 4, p. 166), is at stake. Bucolic singers often possess, as a standard pastoral ‘generic marker’, a fair countenance (cf. Theocr. 6.36, [Theocr.] 8.3 – 4, 72 – 3, 20.21 ff., Verg. Ecl. 7.4 – 5, Calp. 2.3 – 4 and Nemes. 2.16), and Daphnis, the archetypical pastoral singer, is described as formosus in the fifth Vergilian eclogue (v. 44: formosior ipse). In addition, bucolic singers are often not only handsome but in the prime of their youth (cf. Theocr. 6.3, 11.9, [Theocr.] 8.3, 28, 29, 61, 88, 93, Verg. Ecl. 8.39, Nemes. 2.77). Formositas and youth are both doubted in Idas’ lines: the 71 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 124 – 5. For the georgic character of coactos as technical term, cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 19. 72 Cf. also Keene 1969, 76, Amat 1991, 104, Vinchesi 1996, 87, Fey-Wickert 2002, 126 – 7. 73 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 18 – 9, see also the terminus technicus excoquere (v. 76), Verg. G. 2.259 – 60, Colum. 11.3.13; see also Verg. G. 1.107, Friedrich 1976, 203 and n.123. 74 For the Vergilian intertext, cf. also Verdière 1954, 145, Amat 1991, 13, 104, Vinchesi 1992, 153, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 181. 75 Cf. also Stanzel 1989, 187 – 8.

The Singing Match

233

herdsman asks Crocale whether she finds him uncomely (informis, v. 84) and aged (gravis annis, v. 84), a syntagm clearly modeled on Theocr. 3.8 (videor tibi = jatava_molai) and Verg. Ecl. 2.25: nec sum adeo informis76, i. e., in pastoral intertexts with ‘alternative generic leanings’, as developed above, p. 23277. Also under threat, on a meta-poetic level this time, is Idas’ neoteric quality as a singer, as evidenced by the accumulation of catchwords of Callimachean import used in the description of Idas’ formositas, which thus are also called in question (mollissima, v. 8578, gracili, v. 87). Astacus in his responding lines takes over from Idas on the subject of external beauty, with the characteristic for him georgic wording (vv. 90 – 179); yet in spite of Idas’ sense of uncertainty Astacus seems confident of his external appearance80. The singing match ends with a usual closure of pastoral narratives, the coming of evening (v. 93: sed fugit ecce dies revocatque crepuscula vesper), which often has this function mainly in Vergilian pastoral81 (Ecl. 1.82 – 3, 2.66 – 7, 6.85 – 6, 10.77, cf. also 9.63) and is bequeathed to post-Vergilian bucolic poetry as well, cf. Calp. 5.120 – 1, Nemes. 1.86 – 7, 2.88 – 90, 3.67 – 9. Nightfall signals the return to the everyday tasks of pastoral life, and so Idas relates the driving of the flocks (v. 94) and Astacus the watering of the gardens (vv. 96 – 7), cf. also Verg. Ecl. 2.70 – 2, 6.85 – 6, 10.77, Calp. 4.168, Nemes. 1.87, 3.67 – 9. Such assignments are as a rule postponed for the sake of a song exchange, but in the present eclogue’s strong georgic background they appear, along with the sunset motif, as song-topics82. Note that despite its pastoral antece76 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 130. See also Verdière 1954, 145, Díaz–Cíntora 1989, xxv, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 181. 77 The same motif appears in Calp. 3, the elegiac pastoral of the Calpurnian corpus, in vv. 61 – 3, where Lycidas praises himself not only as divitior (v. 63) but also as formosior illo (sc. Mospo), v. 61. The same holds true for Nemes. 2.74 – 81, where Alcon, in imitation of Calp. 3 and functioning within the elegiac triangle of a lover (Alcon), his puella (Donace) and his erotic rival (Idas), calls himself nostro formosior Ida, v. 78. Cf. also chapter 9, pp. 317 – 8. 78 Yet the adjective is common especially with os denoting the first fluff of a young man or the absence of facial hair, cf. also Lucr. 5.672 – 4, Prop. 3.15.14. 79 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 54, Kettemann 1977, 106 and n.25, Amat 1991, 104, Fey-Wickert 2002, 133 – 4. 80 Cf. Cesareo 1931, 56, Friedrich 1976, 54, Gagliardi 1984, 74, Stanzel 1989, 195 – 6. 81 Cf. Rumpf 1996, 198. See also Pearce 1990, 55, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 182, chapter 5, p. 201. 82 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 55 – 6.

234

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

dent, Idas’ intertext for v. 92: ac fistula cedit amori, which brings the songcontest to its end, is Verg. Ecl. 10.69: omnia vincit Amor: et nos cedamus Amori83, a significant line with respect to the ‘generic outlook’ of pastoral: it is the line uttered when the elegiac poet Gallus, after his short-lived bucolic experience, reasserts his elegiac disposition and renounces his adhesion to the ‘pastoral code’84. Again, as often in this Calpurnian eclogue, pastoral ideas are combined with intertextual wording bearing witness to the ‘generic diversity’ of the singing match, since the fistula, a usual metonymy for pastoral poetry, succumbs to the power of amor, a term also denoting elegiac love-poetry. This idea follows in the Calpurnian eclogue another maxim, that carmina poscit amor; it is thus about the wellknown ancient view that poetry is either the symptom of or the antidote to love. This attitude towards poetry is attested in ancient pastoral, but is more common in the elegiac corpus (e. g. Prop. 2.1.4, Ov. Am. 2.17.34, 3.12.16). When appearing in pastoral, it is often a sign of a ‘generic issue’: it occurs in the ‘generically deviant’ eleventh Theocritean idyll (vv. 1 – 3, 17 – 8, 80 – 1) 85, it complements the ‘elegiac discourse’ of the second Vergilian eclogue (vv. 3 – 5), and it recurs in the second eclogue of Nemesianus (Idas’ and Alcon’s elegiac passion for the same puella (Donace), for whom they engage in an amoebaean song-contest) as well as in fourth Nemesianus’ eclogue (Lycidas and Mopsus relieving their elegiac erotic plight (cf. 2.14 – 5, 4.19, 25)), cf. also chapters 9, 10, pp. 301, 32886. Astacus’ lines also exhibit the same pattern of a pastoral facade intertextually alluding to ‘alternative generic trends’: he speaks about the rustling of leaves (v. 95: iam resonant frondes) and about the georgic tasks of opening the channel and watering the garden87 (cf. also vv. 34 – 5, 83 Di Salvo 1990a, 277, 1991, 310 plausibly corrects from non… in ac…cedit; see also Baehrens 1872, 186 (et…cedit), Shackleton-Bailey 1978, 319. Cf. also Verdière 1954, 243, Stanzel 1989, 193, Schäfer 2001, 148, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 182. 84 Cf. the relevant discussion in Papanghelis 1995, 64 – 87, especially 83 – 7, with a critical review of the relevant criticism on the subject. 85 Cf. also Hunter 1999, 215, 220 – 1. Cf. Bion fr. 3. 86 Cf. also Effe – Binder 1989, 159. 87 As to vv. 96 – 7, they are simply an inversion of Verg. Ecl. 3.111: claudite iam rivos, pueri: sat prata biberunt; whereas the intertextual model focuses on the closing of the water supply, the present lines concentrate on the opening of the channel, but the motif is basically the same. For this Vergilian intertext and its inversion here, cf. also Cesareo 1931, 56 – 7, Keene 1969, 78 – 9, Friedrich 1976, 56, Grimal 1978, 164, Pearce 1990, 55, Amat 1991, 19 and n.44, Schäfer 2001, 148, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 184. This intertext from the third

The draw

235

48 – 51). The natural noise produced by the rustling leaves is positively coloured in the pastoral tradition (cf. Theocr. 1.1 – 2. Verg. Ecl. 7.1, 8.22), often also constituting a basic component of a generic locus amoenus; however, this natural sound is here associated with the image of a forest drowning out pastoral song, i. e., eliminating the highest value of the pastoral world, instead or reproducing it by means of an aiding echo. This ‘unpastoral’ attitude is conveyed through a Propertian wording 4.4.4: obstrepit arbor aquis88, further establishing the ‘anti-bucolic’ generic setting. This sense of ‘generic disposition’ of the lines seems to be further complemented with the appearance of a character crucially bearing an ‘unpastoral’ name, Dorylas89 (v. 96) as a foil to both Daphnis (cf. Theocr. 1, 5, 6, 7, [Theocr.] 8, 9, 27, Verg. Ecl. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9) and Alphesiboeus (cf. Verg. 5, 8, see also )kves_boia, Theocr. 3.45) of Idas’ lines (v. 94), who in contrast have the sanction of previous bucolic poetry. On the linguistic level the above ‘generic impression’ seems to be rounded off by the rather georgic syntagm sitientes…hortos in v. 97, cf. also Colum. 10.1.1.2490.

The draw The song-contest ends with the arbiter declaring a draw, a question one should approach from a ‘generic point of view’ as well; unlike both Theocritus and Vergil, where no mention of the umpire’s advanced age is made, Thyrsis here appears, because of his age, cf. v. 98, to be capitalizing on the accumulated previous pastoral experience and tradition. The contradistinction of an aged pastoral figure, suggesting pastoral tradition, with Vergilian eclogue further underscores the ‘generic fluidity’ of the Calpurnian eclogue: for, as in the present Calpurnian poem, both contestants of the third Vergilian eclogue also prove themselves alienated, to a certain degree, from traditional pastoral values and norms of bucolic poetry, verging towards other literary genres; this also accounts, as shown in chapter 2, pp. 87 ff., for their not receiving, as a prize, Alcimedon’s cups, read as symbolising pastoral poetry. The Calpurnian singer is here intertextually associated with the Vergilian contestants of the third eclogue, as both display a certain lack of ‘(traditional) generic awareness’. 88 For the syntagm (obstrepo + arbor + dative complement) modeled on Propertius, cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 138. 89 Fey-Wickert 2002, 139 draws attention to the fact that the gardener Astacus utters the name and not the herdsman Idas; see also Friedrich 1976, 22. 90 Cf. Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 184.

236

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

younger bucolic characters, incarnating the continuation of pastoral as a genre, does appear in post-Vergilian pastoral, e. g. in the case of Tityrus (Vergil) in relation to Corydon (Calpurnius) in the fourth Calpurnian eclogue (vv. 62 ff.), and in the first eclogue of Nemesianus’ pastoral corpus, where the aged Tityrus represents Vergilian pastoral with respect to Timetas standing for Nemesianus’ ‘pastoral succession’91. It is within this framework that the emphasis on Thyrsis’ age should be read (v. 98: senior cum talia Thyrsis); significantly, the elderly umpire takes his seat under an aged tree (v. 21: iamque sub annosa medius consederat umbra), where the probable hypallage of the wording further complements the notion of a built up pastoral experience. The umpire Thyrsis, representing pastoral tradition as evidenced from his advanced age, proclaims his verdict on the new pastoral compositions (tradition vs. novelty) as follows: both singers are equal not only on the level of beauty, love and youth but also, after their respective musical performances are heard, on the level of song; this draw is justified, on the basis of the analysis above, not only in terms of musical excellence but also because of the ‘generic outlook’ of the songs, which both display ‘generic novelty’. To go one step further, the present eclogue is, to a great extent, a reading of the previous, mainly Vergilian bucolic tradition, a meditation on the pastoral genre as shaped chiefly by Vergil. In this sense, Calpurnius follows through, extends, elaborates and, no doubt, reformulates hints, suggestions and themes already present in Vergil. Being ‘belated’, the eclogue thematises, in the course of the song-contest, even those parts of the pastoral scenarios which, in Vergil, remain outside the domain of song, e. g. the nightfall topic; this constitutes a clear meta-poetic, metageneric gesture, a procedure peculiar to evolving pastoral, namely, the inclusion of the world within the song quotations. If ‘real life’, i. e., life conducted outside bucolic song in earlier pastoral poems, is finally inserted between song quotes in a later specimen – this is also a ‘generic / genetic feature’ of pastoral as ‘song about songs’, which ultimately may also be read as reducing the impact of theme as against song activity. In any case, an eclogue that takes stock of the pastoral genre is more likely to be resolved on a non-confrontational note; hence a draw is declared. If pastoral is mainly about song, and if everything, georgic elements, elegiac mood, etc. included, can eventually become song, there is no point in declaring victory for either of the two contestants; moreover both Idas and 91 Cf. also Schetter 1975, 7 – 8, Walter 1988, 29 – 31, Hubbard 1998, 169, 178.

Linguistic Realism

237

Astacus appear to be almost equally capitalizing on the novel thematic stock, to such a degree at least that there is no need for an explicit winner.

Linguistic Realism A final remark concerning the linguistic outlook of the poem: as previously pointed out, p. 215, Astacus the gardener constitutes, because of his profession, a ‘generic innovation’. This ‘generic novelty’ of his profession seems to be reflected on his linguistic behaviour as well, since many novel / PC linguistic options are dispersed throughout his speech. An example is in v. 41 genitalia (if one accepts this reading vs. gentilia, see above pp. 224 – 5) in the sense of ‘inborn’, ‘natural’: induit arbos ignotas frondes et non genitalia poma (vv. 40 – 1), a meaning that appears later in Heges. 3.9.5, Cassiod. var. 7.15.3, Eustath. Bas. hex. 2.9 p.884B (cf. ThLL VI 2, 1813, 73 – 8) 92. In v. 56 the construction of uri with the accusative in the sense of ‘to be in love with’ is post-classical, in place of the classical uri + ablative syntagms (cf. Ov. Met. 7.22); the construction seems to be modeled on similar ardere + accusative syntagms (cf. Sen. H.O. 369) and thus is rightly labeled by Mahr 1964, 132 – 3 as ‘ein nachklassisches Merkmal’93. Faginus in the sense of ‘beechen cup’ (v. 59) is a further post-classical usage94, and the same also applies to echinnus for the chestnut-husk (v. 83), cf. also Pallad. 14.155, Serv. ad 7.53, Gloss. 5.619.20 (see ThLL V 2, 46, 51 – 6) 95, as well as to lana in v. 91: cerea sub tenui lucere cydonia lana of the fruit’s fluff, see also Mart. 10.42.3 et al. (ThLL VII 2, 915, 41 – 50) 96. Praetorridus (v. 80) in the sense of valde torridus is yet another post-classical formation, an hapax of Calpurnius97.

92 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 90. 93 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 101. 94 Cf. Merone 1967, 44 – 5, Messina 1975, 108, Armstrong 1986, 118, Horsfall 1997, 182, 190. 95 Cf. Novelli 1980, 29 – 30, who, however, sees here a reference ‘al mallo delle noci anziché al guscio delle castagne’, Armstrong 1986, 119, Vinchesi 1992, 153, Horsfall 1997, 182, Fey-Wickert 2002, 128 – 9, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 181. 96 Cf. also Dalby 2000, 152, Fey-Wickert 2002, 134. 97 Cf. Mahr 1964, 186: ‘eine Schöpfung unseres Dichters’, Novelli 1980, 85, Armstrong 1986, 118, Horsfall 1997, 182, Fey-Wickert 2002, 127.

238

Pastoral Hybridism: Poetics of Meta-language

A further relatively post-classical feature, although not unparalleled in classical Latin, occurs in vv. 56 – 9, si…audiat,…ponetur: the use of the future ponetur in place of a coniuctivus potentialis as the apodosis of the si…audiat conditional clause, cf. also v. 75: si venias…serviet, (see, on the other hand, Calp. 5.112 – 4, 7.16 – 8). Present indicative or future indicative tense as an apodosis in a conditional sequence expressing the possible instead of a present subjunctive is more productive in post-classical Latin and the above usages are again plausibly characterised by Mahr 1964, 104 as specimens of ‘der früh-nachklassische Sprachgebrauch unseres Dichters’98.

Conclusion Although the eclogue belongs to the type of amoebaean boujokiasl|r, the traditional pastoral song-contest, both Idas and Astacus appear to be ‘reading’ previous pastoral tradition with the intention of ‘transcending’ pastoral ‘generic boundaries’ primarily towards elegiac99 and georgic preferences100. This is often evident through motif usage and wording; additionally, in most cases the intertextual models are ill-omened from the point of erotic success. What is more, not only the ‘generic tradition’ but also the neoteric poetological program is at stake, as evidenced by the critical re-evaluation of relevant catchwords denoting Callimachean trends. On the level of linguistic characterisation, the generically novel gardener, Astacus, often resorts to novel post-classical diction. 98 Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 101. Apart from v. 71: si venias…serviet, the only other post-classical construction that appears in Idas’ speech is the dativus auctoris with intransitive verbs of passive meaning (palpitare, cadere) in vv. 62 – 3: mihi… palpitat…cadit, cf. Mahr 1964, 75, Fey-Wickert 2002, 111; but it could also be interpreted as a dativus commodi. Oleastra for oleastri (v. 44, cf. ThLL IX 2, 541, 19 – 22, Messina 1975, 108, Novelli 1980, 93, Armstrong 1986, 123, Horsfall 1997, 189), not found before Calpurnius, seems to be a poeticism, a metrical variant, see Fey-Wickert 2002, 93. As to the alleged novel use of taeda (v. 29) in the sense of ‘pine branch’ (cf. also Merone 1967, 37 – 8, Messina 1975, 108), one could easily agree with Horsfall 1997, 186 that this linguistic option is ‘not that new after Hor. Carm. 4.4.43, Verg. Aen. 4.505’, where the word does also refer to pine trees and pine wood in particular (cf. OLD 1a, 3). In any case what matters again is the quantity and the variety of post-classical features in Astacus’ speech in opposition to the rather classical colouring of Idas’ diction. 99 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 48, 57, Schäfer 2001, 148 – 9. 100 Cf. also Kettemann 1977, 99 – 108, Vinchesi 1996, 36 – 7; see also Correa 1977, 157 – 8.

Pastoral Backgrounds – ‘Unpastoral’ Foregrounds: The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue A song exchange, though not of an agonistic character, lies at the heart of the central eclogue of the Calpurnian bucolic corpus, the programmatic fourth eclogue1. Two brothers, Corydon and Amyntas, engage in a friendly song exchange in front of Meliboeus, Corydon’s patron, hoping to persuade him to present Corydon to the imperial circles. The songs are not performed until v. 82, with the previous lines dedicated to the relevant prerequisites and the setting up of the background2. The present chapter also aims to examine the ways in which the Calpurnian text converses with the previous pastoral tradition, and to focus on the means (themes, motifs, language and style) that Calpurnius employs in order to suggest his ‘generic ambivalence’. The manner in which Calpurnius’ ‘generic modification’ is applied to well-known meta-linguistic signs related to neoteric pastoral poetics will also form an important concern of the reading to follow.

1

2

As for the dating of the present eclogue, the view adopted in this study is that Calp. 4 chronologically follows Calp. 1, as also accepted by Leach 1973, 53 – 97 in the analysis of Calpurnius’ political eclogues vs. Schenkl 1885, xii, Chytil 1894, 8 – 9, Ferrara 1905, 19 – 20, Chiavola 1921, 37 ff., Marchiò 1957, 313, Spadaro 1969, 28 – 9, 41, Casaceli 1982, 90 – 3, 101. For a refutation of this latter thesis, cf. mainly Verdière 1954, 32, 36 – 8, 1985, 1869, Luiselli 1960, 152, Mahr 1964, 11 – 3, 17, Scheda 1969, 61, Korzeniewski 1972, 214, Cupaiuolo 1973, 191, Messina 1975, 76, Friedrich 1976, 11, Gagliardi 1984, 88 and n.14, Schröder 1991, 20 and n.15, Amat 1991, 31, Vinchesi 1996, 19 – 20, 2009a, 573 – 4 and n.12, Merfeld 1999, 72, 84, Lana 1998, 825 – 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 10 – 11; see also Di Salvo 1990, 26 – 7. This remark is crucial for the reading of the eclogue I propose, as I view Calp. 1 as preceding Calp. 4. See also similarly Davis 1987, 32 – 3. For the lengthiness of the introduction as a technical flaw, cf. Verdière 1966, 165; see also Gagliardi 1984, 62, Simon 2007, 43 – 4.

240

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

The Introductory Narrative The poet’s ‘unpastoral disposition’ becomes evident from the very beginning, as features of the ‘green cabinet’, usually appreciated in the ‘pastoral space’, are negatively viewed or at least put in doubt. The generic locus amoenus3, constituting, as often remarked, cf. pp. 16, 24, 29, 40, 164 – 5, a basic feature of the pastoral genre, is in the Calpurnian text atypical; the coolness of the breeze alleviating the heat of the day, an otherwise pastoral desideratum, is presented with uncertainty as to the pleasantness of its effect (vv. 3 – 4); besides further default pastoral values are also less enthusiastically presented: the generic pastoral shade (v. 2: quidve sub hac platano) and the generic coolness and natural sound of the waters (v. 2: quam garrulus adstrepit umor) are viewed as insueta (v. 3) 4 with quite negative undertones. It seems that a contrast developed between the choice of a locus amoenus, i. e., of a staple generic location for producing pastoral song, and Corydon’s aspirations for composing songs which non nemorale resultent (v. 5), as well as the eventual fulfillment of this artistic objective, may account for the above ‘generically surprising’ designation, insueta. This qualification not only points to Corydon’s and Meliboeus’ estrangement from the pastoral world5, but also testifies to their ‘aberration’ from the pastoral genre and its poetics; the notion of unfamiliarity, of the ‘unknown’ may be here associated with anti-neoteric, un-Callimachean poetic attitudes, as mainly evidenced from the prologue of the Aetia, where the ‘distant’, the ‘unfamiliar’ is identified with images (cf. also chapter 3, pp. 139 – 40; see also p. 225) against the poetological orientation of the genus tenue, to which pastoral belongs. Corydon’s situation in the present Calpurnian poem may thus be viewed as an inversion of Tityrus’ ‘programmatic’ bliss in Verg. 3 4

5

For Calp. 4.1 – 4 as depicting a locus amoenus, cf. also Amat 1991, 31, Simon 2007, 58, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 201; see also Martin 2003, 80, Chinnici 2009, 133 – 4. Vs. Keene 1969, 93, who prefers the variant infesta. For a refutation of this reading, cf. Vozza 1995, 87 – 8 and n.60; see also Schröder 1991, 73, Chinnici 2009, 134 and n.20. In any case, both readings suggest an ‘alienation’ from ‘traditional generic pleasures’. Cf. also Leach 1973, 66, 1975, 208, 227 and n.14, Davis 1987, 44, Schröder 1991, 73 – 4, Vozza 1994, 86 – 8, Paschalis 1996, 145 – 6, Esposito 1996, 14 – 5, Hubbard 1998, 165, Newlands 2002, 143 – 4, 147.

The Introductory Narrative

241

Ecl. 1.51 – 26, which, on the contrary, is secured among familiar (nota) 7 streams in the well-appreciated generic cooling shadow (flumina nota… frigus captabis opacum), also implying, as Papanghelis 1995, 187 – 91 has shown, the ‘meta-linguistic Callimachean correctness’ of the pastoral poetics Tityrus manages to hold on to. This novel, from a ‘generic point of view’, Calpurnian situation, i. e., the negative depiction of a distinctly pastoral ‘generic marker’, the locus amoenus and its main features8, is reflected on the linguistic level as well: it is introduced by a post-classical expression, namely the formation adstrepere, cf. also Sen. Phaedr. 1026, employed in a transitive construction with an accusative complement, v. 2: quam garrulus adstrepit umor 9. This is a first indication of Meliboeus’ penchant for post-classical diction, which probably mirrors his novel ‘generic aspirations’ on the level of his diction as well (this point is further elaborated below, pp. 275 – 6). Interestingly enough, the generic cool shade is not provided here by the traditional pine of Theocritean pastoral, the pastoral beech of Vergilian bucolics or any other pastoral shady tree (e. g. oaks, elms, hazels, ilexes, etc.) 10, but by a newcomer in the genre, the plane tree. Shady plane trees, on the other hand, appear for the first time, in the Latin literature before Calpurnius, as part of the old man’s from Tarentum idyllic landscape and not of a pastoral locus amoenus, cf. Verg. G. 4.146 (see also Hor. Carm. 2.11.13 – 7) 11; this may be read here as a hint about the significant ‘generic alteration’ that the passage displays. A shady plane 6 For the passage as an echo of Verg. Ecl. 1.51 ff., see Korzeniewski 1971, 35, Esposito 1996, 15 – 6, Vinchesi 2002, 146, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 202. 7 For nosco and its derivative formations as ‘reflexive annotations’ in Vergilian pastoral, cf. also Papanghelis 2006, 372 and n.10, chapter 6, p. 224 and n.45. While the Vergilian nota ‘may be reflexively nodding to all those familiar with the Theocritean intertext’ (Papanghelis loc. cit.), the Calpurnian insueta, equally ‘reflexively’, may suggest a distance from and disapproval of an accumulated pastoral textual experience. 8 Cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 167. 9 Cf. also Tac. Ann. 2.12.12, Hist. 4.49.20; see also Mahr 1964, 122, Messina 1975, 76 – 7, 108, Novelli 1980, 45, Gagliardi 1984, 58 – 9 and n.31, Schröder 1991, 73, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 201. 10 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 165 and n.39; see also Paschalis 1996, 146 – 7. Plane trees are incorporated in the pastoral tradition mainly after Calpurnius, cf. also Nemes. 1.72, 2.18. See also Vozza 1994, 81 – 2: ‘I tratti tipici del locus amoenus in 4, 1 ss. sono piuttosto scarsi rispetto alla riccheza descrittiva del genere bucolico’, and 84 – 6 concerning the choice of the plane shade, which is, unconvincingly, attributed to Corydon’s leaning towards the epic genre. 11 Cf. Korzeniewski 1971, 35, Leach 1975, 227 and n.14, Schröder 1991, 72.

242

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

tree as part of a locus amoenus appears on the other hand in a Greek bucolic poet, Moschus fr. 1.11 – 312, but in a fragment without particular pastoral pretensions: a character is complaining of the perilous raging sea as compared to a calm rustic locus amoenus setting. Moschus’ excerpt seems thus to be about a mariner or, in any case, a character who appears to be ‘reading’ the generic bucolic locus amoenus rather unsuccessfully, showing himself rather unknowledgeable as to the flora of the pastoral tradition. This sense of ‘pastoral dislocation’ is reinforced by the image of the silent Corydon in v. 1: quid tacitus, Corydon? 13 Several modern critics have discussed the difficult issue of the relationship of this passage with Eins. 2.114 : quid tacitus, Mystes?, and no consensus has been reached as to whether the similarity is due to Calpurnius’ imitation of the Einsiedeln poet or vice versa. The issue is of course closely connected with the equally vexed question of the chronological precedence of one poet over the other15. However, the most important facet of the line, under the present analysis, is the silence motif and its running counter to the bucolic value of a loud and resonant ‘pastoral space’. This motif had al12 Cf. Esposito 1996, 16 – 8, Vinchesi 2002, 146 – 7, Simon 2007, 58, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 201, Chinnici 2009, 134 and n.18. 13 Cf. also Vozza 1994, 72, 77. Yet Vozza op. cit. 72 – 7 tries to examine Corydon’s silence on the basis of political and religious criteria, which are beyond the scope of my reading. In general Vozza’s reading does not focus on ‘generic issues’ but tries instead to establish an association between Calp. 4.1 – 4 and the so-called ‘literature of opposition’ in the Neronian period (cf. also introduction, pp. 41 – 2), and to reveal ‘the difficulty the intellectual [(Corydon / Calpurnius)] meets to integrate in the Neronian socio-political system’ (cf. p. 92). Similarly Martin 2003, 82 – 3 also reads here a latent irony and criticism of the Neronian aurea aetas, based chiefly on the intertexts of these lines (vv. 1 – 4), namely Cic. Div. 2.30.63, Verg. Ecl. 9 and A. 7.475 – 510, i. e., contexts with ominous associations; this underlying disapproval of the Neronian regime is, according to the scholar, cf. also pp. 84–7, detectable in the intertexts of vv. 12, 31 – 2, 52, 94 as well. Vinchesi 2002, 146, on the other hand, associates Corydon’s posture with poetic inspiration. 14 Cf. Verdière 1954, 157, Pearce 1990, 92, Vozza 1994, 71 and n.1, Amat 1998, 196. 15 For Calpurnius’ posteriority to the Einsiedeln-2 poet, cf. Skutsch 1905, 2115, Momigliano 1944, 98, Schmid 1953, 95 – 6, Hubbard 1998, 165; for the opposite view, cf. Paladini 1956, 521 – 3, Theiler 1956, 568 – 71, Verdière 1966, 174, Scheda 1969, 49 – 56, Sullivan 1985, 56, Courtney 1987, 156 – 7, Di Salvo 1990, 35, Vinchesi 1996, 6 and n.2, 2002, 147, Amat 1997, 218, 1998, 197, 199, Merfeld 1999, 143 and n.1, Simon 2007, 59. For an overview of the subject, cf. also Schröder 1991, 69 – 71.

The Introductory Narrative

243

ready been exploited by Vergil in the ninth eclogue (cf. chapter 5, p. 199), where a tacitus Moeris (v. 37) 16 betrayed through his silence his ‘deviation’ from the pastoral tradition. In a similar vein, Corydon’s silence also seems to testify here to his ‘pastoral alienation’. The ‘unbucolic’ hush becomes more evident in the lines to follow: Corydon confesses that for quite a long time he has been pondering lines without woodland resonances (v. 5: carmina…non quae nemorale resultent), and draws a distinction between pastoral poetry, on the one hand, and poetry fit for praising the aurea saecula and the god presiding over nations and cities, securing peace (vv. 5 – 8), on the other. Corydon with his explicit ‘generic anxieties’ thus partly resembles Vergil of the fourth eclogue17, where, in a similar ‘generic contemplative disposition’, he celebrates the Golden Age associated with the birth of a redeemer child18. Vergil’s voice acknowledges a ‘generic tension’ between humble pastoral poetry, symbolised by the image of vineyards and low tamarisks (v. 2: non omnis arbusta iuvant humilesque myricae), and a loftier genre. But 16 Cf. also Schmid 1953, 94 – 6, Paladini 1956, 521 – 2, Messina 1975, 76, Schröder 1991, 69 – 70, Vozza 1994, 71 and n.1, Merfeld 1999, 85 and n.4, Vinchesi 2002, 147, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 200, Chinnici 2009, 133 and n.17. 17 Cf. also Paladini 1956, 522, Rosenmeyer 1969, 221, Langholf 1990, 366, Esposito 1996, 18 – 9, 2009, 18, Hubbard 1998, 166, Amat 1998, 196, Merfeld 1999, 85 and n.2, Gibson 2004, 2. Despite the fact that the Golden Age motif is central in Neronian panegyric (cf. also Martin 1996, 31, Esposito 2009, 17 and n.9), within the pastoral genre Calpurnius’ immediate predecessor is Vergil’s fourth eclogue, cf. also Gatz 1967, 135, Küppers 1985, 347 and n.23, Schröder 1991, 76 – 7. 18 One might counter with some justification that if pastoral is, among other things, about loca amoena, peaceful and idyllic settings as well as song, Vergil’s fourth eclogue does aspire to exactly this condition, for it pastoralises, i. e., de-historicises, the historical landscape; this is a major pastoral gesture and aspiration. Nonetheless, the political panegyrical symbolisms operating not only in Ecl. 4 but also in Ecl. 5 of the Vergilian bucolic corpus (cf. also chapter 4, pp. 168 ff.) are of a loftier tone compared to the main issues dealt with in all other Vergilian eclogues (see also Hubbard 1998, 76 – 99, Schmidt 1998 – 9, 235). One should, however, discern here that, in opposition to Calpurnius Siculus, panegyric in Vergil (Ecl. 4 and also 5) is still subordinate to the overall pastoral setting, imagery and register (cf. also Monella 2009, 76 and n.25), very subtly and to the point of absorbing the hard edge of the panegyric tone. This delicate balance is not retained in Calpurnius, since here panegyric seems to take precedence over pastoral, to the point of making the bucolic genus just a frame for the ‘laudes principis’. These are the novel panegyrical demands of the imperial period and, from this new perspective, the function and the idea of the song-contest mechanism are thoroughly ‘undermined’.

244

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

in opposition to Corydon, Vergil only desires subject matters19 that are paulo maiora (v. 1: Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus); he does not reject pastoral poetry in its entirety, but simply decides on bucolic strains of a loftier colour, v. 3: si canimus silvas, silvae sint consule dignae. Corydon, on the other hand, is ready for a more radical re-evaluation of his poetic orientation: his songs should have no woodland ring (v. 5), nothing reminiscent of the herd’s sound, cf. also Calp. 1.29: nihil armentale resultat 20. The wording of the expression used for denoting Corydon’s distance from ‘traditional pastoral’ has significantly an Ovidian ring, as nemoralis, employed here for denoting the pastoral genre instead of the common Vergilian and Calpurnian adjectives qualifying the bucolic genus, namely silvestris (Calp. 4.12, see also Verg. Ecl. 6.1 – 2) and rusticus (Verg. Ecl. 3.84, Calp. 4.147, see also my discussion of the second Calpurnian eclogue, p. 228 in particular), appears for the first time in Ovid, cf. Am. 3.1.5; see also 2.6.5721. Corydon / Calpurnius thus chooses to express his ‘transcending’ of ‘traditional’ (mainly Vergilian) ‘pastoral’ by means of an Ovidian wording and intertext; this process of substituting the pastoral Vergil with the non-pastoral Ovid as his poetic model is apparent throughout the eclogue, and the usage of the expression nemoralis here may be read as being part of this process. The above (generically) novel procedure seems to be reflected on the linguistic level once again; Corydon’s / Calpurnius’ inventive ‘generic aspirations’ are thus conveyed by way of an innovative / PC construction, namely the transitive usage of resultare with the neuter accusative as its direct complement (v. 5: non quae nemorale resultent), a syntagm later appearing in Apul. Met. 5.7.5 and Mart. Cap. 1.2 as well22. Following the pattern of the fourth Vergilian eclogue and its Golden Age analogies, the Vergilian intertext of the deus ipse topic of the Calpurnian lines under discussion further suggests a kind of ‘divorce’ with pastoral tradition: Calp. 4.7 – 8 seems to be modeled on the first Vergi19 I do not see a particular colloquial nuance in the paulo syntagm in question, crucially occurring also in Lucretius (cf. Van Sickle 1992, 66 – 7), at least to the extent of agreeing with Gotoff 1967, 67 – 9, who reads the whole line as ironic. 20 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 246, Paladini 1956, 528, Spadaro 1969, 28, Davis 1987, 44, Amat 1991, 107, Horsfall 1997, 188; see also Simon 2007, 57, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 202. 21 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 76, McKeown 1998, 142. For similar terms as designations of pastoral poetry, see also Schmidt 1972, 243. 22 Cf. also Merone 1967, 14, Messina 1975, 111, Gagliardi 1984, 71, Schröder 1991, 76, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 202.

The Introductory Narrative

245

lian eclogue, 1.6 – 7, 1823, and is in line with the tendency of Neronian literature to associate the emperor with a divine figure24. However, the Vergilian pastoral god is presented as securing the continuation of the ‘pastoral space’, at least for Tityrus, as a guarantor of the ‘green cabinet’ and its bucolic genre; this is not the case in Calpurnius: the god is simply praised as a ruler of the Roman imperium not associated in any particular way with the bucolic world. What is more, the wording by means of which this god is described (v. 8: qui populos urbesque regit pacemque togatam) alludes to epic texts25 (cf. Verg. A. 1.282, 6.851, 8.325, see also Cic. Div. 1.21.8 (poet. 6.67) 26) and thus confirms Corydon’s (equated with Calpurnius27) endeavours for ‘generic transcendence’28. Meliboeus reacts to Corydon’s novel ‘generic demands’ by affirming the latter’s pastoral, at least up to their encounter, as described in the present eclogue, and in consequence neoteric poetic orientation. Corydon’s poetic production, as known to Meliboeus, is thus described as dulce, a poetological catchword constituting, as elsewhere elaborated, cf. pp. 15, 24 – 5, 66 – 7, 75, 92, 131, 167, 192, 196, 218, 219 – 20, a basic ‘generic marker’ of Callimachean pastoral (cf. Theocr. 1.1 – 3, Verg. Ecl. 5.47; see also Calp. 2.6, 4.55, 61, 150, 160, 7.20, Nemes. 1.22, 82, 2.15, 23 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 78. 24 Cf. also Bardon 1972, 12. For the various divine attributes of the deified Nero in the present eclogue, cf. also Schröder 1991, 18 – 9 and n.12. 25 Cf. also Joly 1974, 46 – 7, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 157 and n.25, Schröder 1991, 78: ‘Dieser Ausdruck…hat episches Gepräge’, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 203: ‘il nesso del linguaggio epico e solenne’. 26 Cf. Cesareo 1931, 167, Verdière 1954, 246, Korzeniewski 1971, 36, Messina 1975, 77, Pearce 1990, 92, Amat 1991, 107. 27 For Corydon as the literary persona of Calpurnius, cf. also Skutsch 1897, 1403, Wendel 1901, 58 – 9, Morelli 1914, 120, Hubaux 1930, 174, Cesareo 1931, 158, Herrmann 1952, 34 – 5, Duff 1960, 266, Verdière 1966, 165, Rosenmeyer 1969, 341 and n.55, Cizek 1972, 372, Schmidt 1972, 122 – 4, Joly 1974, 42, Friedrich 1976, 129, Grimal 1978, 165, Casaceli 1982, 86, Castagna 1982, 159, Küppers 1989, 39, Langholf 1990, 357, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 160, 164, Schröder 1991, 22 – 5, Amat 1991, xxv, Vozza 1993, 287, Vinchesi 1996, 9, 2002, 140, Hubbard 1998, 154, Schubert 1998, 64, Beato 2003, 93, Martin 2003, 75, Magnelli 2006, 469 – 70, Simon 2007, 43 – 98, especially 51, Monella 2009, 75 and n.23. For a more critical approach, cf. Leach 1973, 86, Davis 1987, 39, Newlands 1987, 227 – 9, Effe – Binder 1989, 117 – 8. 28 Garson 1974, 669 speaks about a ‘disparagement’ of the bucolic in the case of the fourth Calpurnian eclogue.

246

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

83, 4.13) 29. He complements this claim of his with the image of Apollo casting a not unfavourable glance on the singer, vv. 9 – 10: nec te diversus Apollo despicit. It is a common trend of Neronian literature, pastoral included, to associate or even to identify the emperor with Apollo (cf. Eins. 1.22 – 4, 27, 32 – 3, 2.38) 30 ; from the viewpoint of pastoral poetics, however, Apollo is also the god of the dulce poetic trend: in the coda of Callimachus’ hymn to Apollo (vv. 108 ff.), it is Apollo himself who, as the god of poetic inspiration, urges for poetry composed jat± kept¹m and against poetry of many lines, symbolised by the Assyrian river, (cf. also Aet. 1.22 – 8 Pf. and the relevant discussion in chapter 1, p. 67). In Roman pastoral, i. e., in Verg. Ecl. 6.1 ff., it is Apollo again who admonishes Vergil for a deductum carmen31, cf. also Hor. Carm. 4.15.1 – 4, Prop. 3.3.13 – 26, 4.1b.73 – 4, 133 – 4, Ov. Ars 2.493 – 508, p. 77. Thus if Apollo were to look favourably upon Corydon, it would be for the opposite poetic orientation than the one Meliboeus expects of the pastoral singer for the future. The poetological associations of Meliboeus’ magnae numina Romae, v. 10 (magnus as a catchword opposing slender sensibilities and combined with a preference for the urbs vs. rus 32), would justify Apollo’s intervention. But things change, and even gods may alter their poetic preferences: Apollo now accepts Corydon’s poetological aspirations towards a loftier poetic style (cf. also vv. 70 – 2)33, and so Meliboeus insists that Corydon will prove himself competent at singing about Rome’s numina in a quite different manner than the one adopted for his previous pastoral compositions (v. 11: ut ovile Menalcae 34). 29 Cf. also Schmidt 1972, 29 and n.64, Schröder 1991, 79. 30 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 247, Griffin 1984, 120, Vinchesi 1996, 22 – 3, 103, Champlin 2003, 276 – 83. 31 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 166, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 203. 32 For Calpurnius’ preference for urbs over rus, cf. especially Perutelli 1976, 781 ff. 33 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 166; I do not see with Hubbard loc. cit. a reversal of the prologue in Verg. Ecl. 6, but rather a modification. The god of the genus tenue here simply does not disapprove of loftier poetic inspirations, but does not advocate them. 34 Cf. also Ahl 1984, 66. Commenting on the use of ovile in the line, Schröder 1991, 81 convincingly remarks: ‘bezeichnet den Gegenstandsbereich der reinen Bukolik und damit diese selbst’; see also Schmidt 1969, 192, Vozza 1993, 293. Vinchesi 1996, 46 too reads the line as constituting along with vv. 74 – 5 an ‘emblema della tenue poesia pastorale’. For an association of the passage with Verg. Ecl. 4.1 – 4, see Verdière 1985, 1869.

The Introductory Narrative

247

Corydon accepts Meliboeus’ criticism, and tries to make allowances for the pastoral colouring Meliboeus has been exposed to, prior to their encounter in the present eclogue, i. e., before the song exchange that follows. He thus acknowledges the sylvan character of his work (vv. 12 – 3: silvestre licet videatur acutis auribus), crucially further describing his poetic production by means of the technical term rusticitas (v. 14), which in its turn has parallels in the previous pastoral tradition as a ‘self-reflexive generic term’, cf. also p. 24435. The expression thus alludes both to Verg. Ecl. 2.5636, where Corydon ‘self-referentially’ so acknowledges his adhesion to the pastoral world and the bucolic genre (cf. also vv. 60 – 1), and to Verg. Ecl. 3.84: Pollio amat nostram, quamvis est rustica, Musam 37, where one of the contestants, Damoetas, uses a similar qualification for describing his pastoral Muse. A sense of ‘traditional pastoral correctness’ is further evoked by an unequivocally pastoral image: a herdsman, Corydon’s brother Amyntas, sings in the shade of a pine tree (vv. 16 – 8, cf. the use of the verb meditatur in v. 17 in the sense of ‘to produce pastoral song’ having its parallels in the Vergilian corpus, cf. 1.2: silvestrem tenui musam meditaris avena38, 6.8; see also 6.82). However, the Calpurnian passage is again not free from ‘anti-bucolic’ signs: whereas in the Vergilian intertexts the term rusticus simply denotes the pastoral character of the herdsmen’s song and is not related to issues of poetic skill, Calpurnius’ Corydon uses it to characterise his lack of artistic polish (vv. 14 – 5: si non valet arte polita carminis) 39. As a result, 35 Cf. also Schmidt 1972, 26 – 7. For rusticitas denoting pastoral poetry as well, cf. Vinchesi 1996, 29, Magnelli 2006, 472; see also Correa 1977, 152. Rusticitas functions as an obstacle to the poet’s urban aspirations in Calp. 7 as well, cf. vv. 40 – 2, 79: o utinam nobis non rustica vestis inesset!; see also Vozza 1993, 300 – 1, n.21. 36 Cf. Davis 1987, 44, Gibson 2004, 3. 37 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 84, Vozza 1993, 291 – 2, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 204. 38 Cf. also Verdière 1971, 378, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 157 and n.25, Pearce 1990, 93. 39 In the second Vergilian eclogue, Corydon’s lays are described as incondita (v. 4), i. e., ‘artless’; however this aesthetic judgment comes not from Corydon himself but from the voice of the external narrator in the framing introduction (vv. 1 – 5). More importantly, it is not the rustic / pastoral production of Corydon that is so qualified, but rather the ‘unpastoral’, ‘elegising discourse’ that Corydon addresses to Alexis, and, what is more, in a setting comprising as it does a lone singer (v. 4: solus), recalling the also ‘unpastoral disposition’ of the lone singer in both the eleventh Theocritean idyll and the ninth Vergilian eclogue

248

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

in Calpurnius the term is not simply a ‘generic characterisation’, but is further semantically loaded with undertones relating to the well-known dichotomy of rusticitas – urbanitas40, this time in terms of poetic proficiency. Pastoral song is certainly of rustic thematic, but not less polished in poetic style because of its rusticitas. Singing excellence is the highest qualification of the rustic ‘green cabinet’, coveted by the rustic inhabitants of the ‘pastoral space’41; so Corydon’s self-deprecatory remarks on the quality of his traditionally pastoral / rustic poetry seem quite out of place in a pastoral work, ‘deviating’ as they do from the acknowledged and positively viewed Callimachean poetological orientation of pastoral / rustic poetic slenderness, as suggested by the previous pastoral tradition (cf. also introduction, pp. 15, 33). It is perhaps the case that pastoral has here fallen victim to the requirements of panegyric; thus it seems that any kind of non-panegyric verse, as required from the Neronian period onwards at least (cf. n.18 on p. 243), is bound to be thought of as ‘unpolished’, i. e., not worthy of the emperor. Hence if pastoral is not undervalued per se, pastoral forms of no imperial panegyric colouring, and as a consequence pre-Calpurnian bucolics for that matter as well, are clearly rated too low. Corydon’s desire for his loyalty to be recognised (v. 15: at certe valeat pietate probari) constitutes one more step away from the earlier pastoral canon: pietas is primarily an epic value, ideally exemplified by pius Aeneas42 and is by no means a crucial asset in the pastoral value system. Accusations of poetic incompetence together with appeals to ideals related to pietas move the reader once again away from pastoral tradition, thus (cf. in particular chapter 5, p. 201). This discourse of Corydon’s has led scholars to label Ecl. 2 as an ‘anti-Eclogue’ (cf. Galinsky 1965, 175), as the ‘most elegiac of pastorals’ (cf. Coleman 1977, 108). 40 Cf. also Calp. 7.40 – 2, Di Salvo 1990, 42. Vinchesi 1996, 20 discerns here a form of the so-called ‘formula di modestia’ of the kind known mainly from panegyrical incipits and dedicatory parts of heroic / panegyric compositions of the later imperial period. 41 The very expression valet arte points to Callimachean – neoteric poetic directions; its intertext is the poetological elegy-svqac·r 1.15 of the Ovidian Amores, cf. also Schröder 1991, 84, Fucecchi 2009, 44 and n.16, chapter 1, p. 80. Callimachean poetry (bucolic poetry included) is characterised by ars in opposition to Corydon’s remarks. 42 Cf. also Cizek 1972, 374, Vozza 1993, 294. Amat 1991, 107 reads the term as equivalent to ‘l’ attachement à la cité, le patriotisme que pousse Corydon à se réjouir de la paix’. For the political and religious undertones of the term however, cf. Vozza 1993, 293: ‘devozione religiosa all’ imperatore’.

The Introductory Narrative

249

reinforcing an overall yearning for ‘transcending’ pre-Calpurnian pastoral as a genre, evidenced from vv. 5 ff. onwards. Similar poetological aspirations are to be discerned in the pastoral production of Corydon’s brother, Amyntas, who composes pastoral song assimilating the poetic quality of his brother’s novel production (v. 17: haec eadem nobis frater meditatur Amyntas). The setting of Amyntas’ ‘diversified’ pastoral production about to be disclosed is, however, given once again by means of traditional pastoral images, that of a rocky setting (v. 16: rupe sub hac, cf. also [Theocr.] 8.55, Verg. Ecl. 1.56) and a pine tree-scenery (v. 16: proxima pinus, cf. also Theocr. 1.1, Verg. Ecl. 1.38, 7.24, 65, 68, 8.22, Calp. 1.9 – 1043) securing the omnipresent pastoral shade; traditional pastoral signs are thus mingled with ‘generically deviating’ markers further blurring the ‘generic outlook’ of the poem. In vv. 19 ff. a distinction is drawn between the past, exhibiting a hostile attitude towards poetry, vs. a more favourable present44, a division common in panegyric contexts45 : Corydon is presented as prohibiting his brother Amyntas from joining the reeds of his pastoral flute and from producing pastoral music (vv. 19 – 21). Emphasis is given not only to the fact that Corydon tries to eliminate pastoral poetry but also to his doing away with the Callimachean – neoteric character of this slender bucolic poetic production. The lines under question contain several catchwords of poetological import, such as the hemlock stems which are described as leves (v. 20: levibus…cicutis), and the piping which is phrased by means of the verb ludere (v. 21: ludere conantem vetuisti) 46. Corydon thus functions in just the opposite way of the praesens deus47 of the first Vergilian eclogue to whom Calpurnius intertextually refers, cf. pp. 244 – 5. Whereas the urban god intervenes in order to secure Tityrus’ enjoyment of the woodland slender Muse (Verg. Ecl. 1.1048 : ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti; note here again the presence of the neoteric term ludere, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 6.1, 7.17), Corydon urges the elimination of the Callimachean pastoral song. His ‘unpastoral’ atti43 For the references, cf. also Schröder 1991, 85 – 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 204. 44 Cf. also Schubert 1998, 64 – 5. 45 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 181. 46 For the Callimachean – neoteric character of the terms in Vergilian pastoral, cf. also Schröder 1991, 90. 47 For the motif as typical of the Augustan period, cf. also Simon 2007, 80. 48 For vv. 20 f. alluding to Verg. Ecl. 1.10, see also Verdière 1954, 159, Korzeniewski 1971, 37, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 205.

250

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

tude is enhanced by the frown of an angry father (fronte paterna, v. 21), which he adopts when admonishing his brother, Amyntas, against his cicuta-playing. Angry fathers are not a pastoral feature, appearing chiefly in other literary genres such as comedy and mime; their occasional presence in pastoral (e. g. [Theocr.] 8 and Verg. Ecl. 3) may be interpreted as a comic or mimic influence, and are often complemented with other generic comic characteristics (cf. chapter 2, pp. 107 – 9). In any case the father figure, apprehensive of property loss in the two pre-Calpurnian pastoral intertexts, is here associated with the abolition of the highest pastoral value. The pursuit proposed by Corydon is that Amyntas should assuage his hunger, which the Muses cannot alleviate, a crucial materialistic concern alien to Theocritean, Greek post-Theocritean and Vergilian pastoral idealism (vv. 26 – 7: quid enim tibi fistula reddet, quo tutere famem?). The topic of the poor poet, the ‘intellektuelle Proletarier’49, threatened by hunger has no parallels in ‘traditional pastoral’50 and, what is more, is here connected with the promotion of georgic interests51 in place of default pastoral concerns (v. 23: frange…calamos 52), as a means of escape from hunger53, exemplified mainly by the milking imagery in vv. 25 – 6 (cf. also Verg. G. 3.177, 309, 400 – 2, etc.54). Hunger, to make things worse, forces the herdsman to abandon the ‘pastoral space’ for the urbs, in order to sell his milk (vv. 25 – 6: lac venale per urbem…porta). The herdsman is thus presented as being interested in profit (venale), an ‘unpastoral’ materialistic concern commonly associated with 49 Cf. Simon 2007, 63. 50 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 91 speaking of the motif of ‘brotlosen Kunst’. The motif points to other genres, cf. Ov. Trist. 4.10.21 – 3, Mart. 5.56. 51 For the influence the georgic genus has upon the fourth Calpurnian pastoral in general, cf. also Schröder 1991, 26 – 9, Schubert 1998, 64. 52 For the image common in both Juvenal and Martial, cf. Verdière 1954, 159, Keene 1969, 96, Korzeniewski 1971, 37, Townend 1973, 150, Mayer 1980, 176, Armstrong 1986, 128 – 9, Courtney 1987, 153 – 4, Braund 1988, 39, 210 and n.40, Amat 1991, 107, Schröder 1991, 90 – 1, Vozza 1993, 294 – 5 and n.45, Vinchesi 1996, 30, Hubbard 1998, 167, Simon 2007, 66. 53 The image of destitution is further underlined by Corydon’s advising his brother to gather acorns and red cornel cherries (v. 24: i, potius glandes rubicundaque collige corna), i. e., a type of food that the Romans thought fit for men only in ancient times, but was associated in historical period with situations of extreme poverty, cf. also Schröder 1991, 92, Vinchesi 1996, 104. 54 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 37.

The Introductory Narrative

251

the ‘georgic ideal’55. As Rosenmeyer 1969, 102 observes: ‘the pastoral herdsman does not look upon his flock as chattel, and instruments of profit, but as associates in pleasure and happiness’. This ‘ideal pastoralism’ has no place in Corydon’s exhortations to his brother. What is more the motif of the materialistic interests of a pastoral inhabitant further harks back to Verg. Ecl. 1.3456, another also ‘unpastoral’ intertext, where Tityrus complains that his spendthrift ex-wife, Galatea, was responsible for his poor financial situation, despite the large number of his flocks (v. 33) and the amount of cheese he produced (pinguis…premeretur caseus urbi). This passage constituted a characteristic case of ‘deviation’ from pastoral ideals, containing further several ‘unpastoral’ features, such as is the notion of libertas (v. 32), Tityrus’ peculium (v. 32) and the comic-related image of the wasteful wife57, cf. also pp. 134 – 5. The image of this ‘pastoral dislocation’ towards different ‘generic ideals’ is in the Calpurnian eclogue complemented by the motif of the echo (vv. 27 – 8): the herdsman complains that nobody is repeating his song apart from the wind-sped echo; but the effect of the repetitive echo, simply functioning as a foil to Corydon’s grievance here, constitutes one of the basic ‘generic markers’ of pastoral, pointing to the close bond between man and nature (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.5, 6.84, 10.8, see also Nemes. 1.72 – 4). The somewhat negative depiction of the echo motif here betrays once again a movement away from traditional pastoral values58. However, things have changed under the influence of the new god, Nero59, and his new maecenatism, v. 30: non eadem nobis sunt tempora, non deus idem; pastoral order seems to be restored and pastoral song appears to be reborn. A series of pastoral ‘generic markers’ and allusions to 55 Cf. especially Davis 1987, 37. 56 Cf. also Pearce 1990, 93, Schröder 1991, 93, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 206. 57 Cf. Coleman 1977, 78, Papanghelis 1995, 193 – 4. 58 Cf. Leach 1973, 68, Schröder 1991, 94 – 5; see also Simon 2007, 61. Calpurnius in general seems to avoid the sonorous nature of pre-Calpurnian pastoral, cf. especially Damon 1973, 292 – 4; see also Rosenmeyer 1969, 186. 59 Cf. Pearce 1990, 94, Amat 1991, 108, Monella 2009, 67; Hubaux 1930, 183 thinks that the qualification simply refers to an eminent member of the imperial court. For a distinction made between Claudius’ principatus and Nero’s ascension, cf. Cesareo 1931, 171, Verdière 1954, 247, Keene 1969, 97, Vozza 1993, 286 and n.12, Vinchesi 1996, 30 – 1, 105, 2002, 139, 147 – 8, Merfeld 1999, 86, Martin 2003, 75, Simon 2007, 61, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 207; see also Spadaro 1969, 38 – 9, Joly 1974, 53.

252

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

the programmatic first Vergilian eclogue testify to this: the sense of relaxation under the shadow of a tree (v. 37), the enjoyment of Amaryllis’ woods60 (v. 38), Corydon’s departure from his familiar pastoral environment and his exile61, prevented by Meliboeus’ intervention (vv. 39 – 49) 62, have their parallels in the Vergilian pastoral. These include: Tityrus lying lentus in umbra in Ecl. 1.4 (cf. also 1.1, Theocr. 7.88 – 9), Amaryllis resounding in the woods in Ecl. 1.5, and Meliboeus setting off for the world’s extremities in Ecl. 1.64 – 663. However, in the Vergilian case a poetological reading may suggest the association of Tityrus’ permanence in the pastoral world with his continuing adhesion to the Callimachean pastoral poetry, whereas Meliboeus’ forced departure may be read, on the basis of the imagery of the ‘distant’, the ‘remote’ in Callimachus’ Aetia, 1.13 – 6 ff., as an indication of his ‘alienation’ from the ‘purity’ of neoteric pastoral song, cf. Papanghelis 1995, 194 ff. Such poetological preoccupations seem to be absent from the Calpurnian text. Corydon is enthusiastic over the satisfaction of his hunger and blesses himself for staying in his familiar ‘pastoral space’, which contrasts with the hostile and war-like Iberian landscape64, for otherwise it would be 60 Cf. Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 157 and n.25. Verdière 1954, 247 reads the image as a reference to pastoral poetry, see also Schröder 1991, 102 – 3, Amat 1991, 108; for Amaryllis as a metonymy for Rome or a simple realistic reference to a shepherdess’ name, cf. also Keene 1969, 98, Langholf 1990, 358 and n.25, Schröder 1991, 102. 61 For the syntagm extremo…in orbe iacere, appropriate in the diction of exile, cf. Schröder 1991, 107. 62 Verdière 1954, 15 sees here autobiographical allusions that point to the Iberian origin of the poet, see also De Sipio 1935, 13 – 4, Amat 1991, ix, 32; yet cf. Mahr 1964, 3 – 5, Messina 1975, 79 and n.81, Schröder 1991, 104. Ahl 1984, 67, on the other hand, detects here a scathing indirect allusion to the many prominent Spaniards during the Neronian period (‘Romans’ are thus seen as ‘being replaced by provincials’); but irrespective of the potential biographical / historical allusions, the key-element of this passage, under the analysis developed here, is its undoubted Vergilian intertext, that of the first eclogue. 63 Cf. also Cesareo 1931, 170 – 1, Verdière 1954, 247, 1966, 165, Paladini 1956, 522 – 3, Korzeniewski 1971, 38, Leach 1973, 68 – 9, Joly 1974, 64 and n.86, Messina 1975, 78, Friedrich 1976, 152 – 3, Davis 1987, 44 – 5, Langholf 1990, 358 – 9, Pearce 1990, 94, Schröder 1991, 100 – 1, 103, Vinchesi 1996, 32 – 3, 107, Hubbard 1998, 168, Schubert 1998, 65, Simon 2007, 55, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 208 – 9. 64 For an association of the passage with contemporary history, namely the death of the king of Mauritania (40 AD) and the subsequent riot, cf. Verdière 1954, 247, Vinchesi 1996, 107, Simon 2007, 53 and n.46.

The Introductory Narrative

253

very difficult to move the imperial ears with his songs (of a loftier poetic caliber) and thus to integrate himself into the imperial circles. No one would have paid attention to his music in the midst of the thorn bushes of his exile (vv. 46 – 7: nec quisquam nostras inter dumeta Camenas respiceret), believes Corydon. Note here the term that he employs for his singing production, Camenas, i. e., the equivalent of the Muses. As often remarked in this study (cf. also introduction, p. 18; see also pp. 222 – 3), a basic feature of pastoral is the close association of the genre with the Nymphs rather than the Muses; the use of this term may also point to the ‘generic transcending aspirations’ of Calpurnian pastoralism. Corydon, one may conclude on the basis of the symbolism he makes use of, is not interested in having a ‘pure’ / ‘traditional pastoral voice’ restored. First of all, he declares himself pleased for no longer having to live on the glands of the beech, v. 35, the emblematic tree of Vergilian pastoral poetry65. Instead, Meliboeus has him fed with grain (v. 33), out of pity for his meager means and docile young age (v. 34: tu nostras miseratus opes docilemque iuventam) 66. This last quality is again of no particular importance in pastoral tradition, and is not attributed to any Theocritean or Vergilian herdsmen. It therefore indicates the adoption of a different value system, rather belonging to other literary genres of a more ‘panegyric outlook’, cf. Hor. C.S. 45, Serm. 2.2.52. This ‘alienation’ from ‘traditional pastoral’ may also be read in the negative presentation of the strawberries and the green mallow in vv. 31 – 2: ne fraga rubosque colligerem viridique famem solarer hibisco, as opposed to their positive connotations in the rest of Latin literature67. Strawberries have their place in Vergilian pastoral, cf. Ecl. 3.9268, where they constitute an element of the pastoral landscape against the ‘unpastoral disposition’ of a lurking snake (for the symbolism of the image see chapter 2, pp. 118 – 9). The case of the hibiscum is more significant, since it occurs 65 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 167. 66 One should notice here with Sauter 1934, 14 the hymnic / religious character of Corydon’s appeal to Meliboeus, as evidenced by the ‘Du-style’ of vv. 33 ff. Thus, it is not only the emperor, who is perceived as a god, but also the go-between Meliboeus, who seems to be credited with divine properties as well. Ritual / hymnic-prayer features do appear in the appeals to the divine Nero too, especially the ‘Er-style’ of vv. 88 – 9, 122 – 6, 127 – 8; see also La Bua 1999, 294 – 6, Vinchesi 2009a, 571 – 88. 67 Cf. Schröder 1991, 98 with his text references. 68 Cf. Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 207.

254

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

in programmatic instances within the Vergilian corpus: in Ecl. 2.3069 Corydon, the representative of the Vergilian ‘green cabinet’, invites Alexis, his urban beloved, to join him in several pastoral activities including flock driving with a green hibiscum switch (haedorumque gregem viridi compellere hibisco). This attribute of the Vergilian ‘pastoral space’ reappears in the programmatic tenth eclogue as well (v. 71), where the pastoral poet is presented as weaving a basket of slender hibiscum (gracili fiscellam texit hibisco), i. e., an obvious poetological image of the Callimachean character of pastoral poetry70. Vergil thus seems to depict himself as a pastoral poet of Callimachean aspirations before embarking on loftier poetic genres71. Corydon’s negative depiction of the green mallow, the strawberry and the emblematic beech tree betrays not only his ‘drifting apart’ from pastoral life72 but also a certain degree of ‘generic alienation’ from earlier Vergilian pastoral. Besides, this feeling of ‘generic estrangement from pastoral tradition’ seems to be further evidenced on the linguistic level as well; namely by Corydon’s inserting in the ‘pastoral host-text’ a iunctura of a clear modal georgic colouring, fashioned after Verg. G. 1.15973, i. e., famem solarer, v. 32. Corydon desires something loftier than Vergil’s bucolic poetry, and thus appeals to the criticism of Meliboeus, who significantly is not a renowned pastoral singer, like Menalcas in the ninth Vergilian eclogue for example, but a poet of ‘greater aspirations’, who exhibits a wider poetic gamut, ranging from lyric poetry to tragedy. He has astronomical and georgic interests (didactic poetry), as suggested by his knowledge of weather signs, i. e., the rain storms to come (vv. 53 – 4, for this didactic concern, cf. Cic. Div. 1.13 – 5 (Arat. 909 – 87), Verg. G. 1.351 – 92) and the quality of sunrises and sunsets (vv. 54 – 5, cf. also Verg. G. 1.441 – 64) 74. The bacchic ivy clusters and the apolline laurel, on the other hand, may symbolise his engagement with both tragedy and lyric poet69 Cf. also Messina 1975, 78 and n.80, Vinchesi 1996, 105, Mayer 2006, 463, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 207. 70 For the poetological character of the scene, cf. also Schröder 1991, 98. 71 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 138. 72 Cf. Schröder 1991, 98: ‘Corydons Entfremdung vom Hirtenleben’. 73 Cf. Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 207. 74 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 97, Bartalucci 1976, 93, Schröder 1991, 114 – 6. See also Morford 1985, 2009 and n.33, who also reads here a reference to a didactic work by Meliboeus; he also understands, rather unconvincingly, the image in vv. 53 – 7 as figuratively referring to Nero himself, on the basis of sol aureus and pulcher…Apollo imagery in vv. 54, 57 respectively.

The Introductory Narrative

255

ry75. The combination of ivy and laurel appears once in Vergilian pastoral, in Ecl. 8.1376 ; in this passage it appears significantly in the recusatio, it is associated with the political figure of the poem (cf. chapter 3, pp. 126 – 30) and is related to the conquering / ‘epic outlook’ of the eclogue’s cryptic figure (inter victricis hederam tibi serpere lauros). Corydon will perform on the reeds of Tityrus, symbolising in all probability, by means of the common in Latin literature primus / princeps motif, Vergil himself 77 as the first Roman pastoral poet (vv. 62 – 3: ce75 Cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 248, Keene 1969, 100, Bartalucci 1976, 93, Amat 1991, 109, Vinchesi 1996, 108. Even if one does not accept Duff’s reading, since Bacchus is often depicted in Latin literature as presiding over poetry in general, cf. Schröder 1991, 118, what matters here is that Meliboeus is never presented as a professional pastoral poet (or a herdsman). For the allegorical reading of Meliboeus, two main contemporary figures have been proposed in the relevant bibliography: Seneca the younger (cf. Sarpe 1819, 34, Ferrara 1905, 36 – 7, Morelli 1914, 120 – 5, Bardon 1968, 222, Luiselli 1960, 149, Duff 1960, 265 – 6, Keene 1969, 12, 100, Messina 1975, 79 and n.81, Friedrich 1976, 148, Casaceli 1982, 86, Ahl 1984, 67, Gagliardi 1984, 59 and n.32, Simon 2007, 51; see also Mayer 1982, 315 – 6) and C. Calpurnius Piso (cf. Haupt 1875, 392, Schenkl 1885, xi, Skutsch 1897, 1404 – 5, Wendel 1901, 58, Butler 1909, 152, Chiavola 1921, 27, Salvatore 1949, 188, Herrmann 1952, 28 – 9, Bickel 1954, 197, Verdière 1954, 50 – 1, 1977, 15 – 21, Mahr 1964, 23 – 5, Lana 1965, 118, 1998, 826, Cizek 1972, 372 – 3, Grimal 1978, 164, Sullivan 1985, 48 and n.61, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 9; see also Beato 1995, 619 and n.8 and the reservations of Cesareo 1931, 160 – 4 and n.2). Less likely candidates include Messala, cf. Hubaux 1930, 176 (for a refutation of this thesis, see Bardon 1968, 221 – 2), Columella, cf. Chytil 1894, 6, Bartalucci 1976, 93, 112 and n.27, and Nero, cf. Horsfall 1997, 167. For a different association in the period of Severus Alexander, cf. also Champlin 1978, 108 – 9 (L. Marius Maximus); see also Díaz–Cíntora 1989, x (Iunius Tiberianus). For Meliboeus as a ‘Präfiguration Neros’, cf. Schubert 1998, 66, whereas for Leach 1973, 65 Meliboeus might be ‘a purely imaginative patron, a figure to typify the urban world’. Such interpretations are beyond the scope of my reading. Schröder 1991, 113 rightly does not see a reference to a particular work of a contemporary literary figure here; cf. also pp. 30 – 4, Korzeniewski 1971, 97, Merfeld 1999, 84 and n.2. In a similar vein Vinchesi 1996, 11 – 2 remains sceptical and cautious and, thus, advices against any identification; see also Summers 1920, 91, Correa 1977, 149, Baldwin 1995, 166 – 7, Mayer 2006, 458 – 9 and n.13, Monella 2009, 75 and n.23. 76 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 163, Korzeniewski 1971, 39, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 211. 77 Cf. Wendel 1901, 58, Hubaux 1930, 176, Cesareo 1931, 159 – 60, Wendel 1933, 38 – 9, Verdière 1954, 51 – 3, 1966, 165, 1971, 377, Theiler 1956, 566, Cizek 1968, 149, 1972, 372, 374, Keene 1969, 100, Rosenmeyer 1969, 341 and n.55, Pearce 1970, 336, Korzeniewski 1971, 97, Schmidt 1972, 122, Cu-

256

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

cinit qui primus in istis montibus, see also Verg. Ecl. 6.1) 78. However, the readers’ expectations for a bucolic performance in imitation of Vergil79 prove unfounded in the end, despite the fact that several hallmarks of the genre, as shaped chiefly by Vergil, are repeated throughout Corydon’s lines. These include: the sweet (cf. v. 61: dulcisssima) Hyblean80 quality of Vergil’s pipe, handed down by Iollas81 in a gesture of a poetic succession / initiation82, vv. 59 ff., the combination of modulabile carmen with avena (v. 63) harking back to Verg. Ecl. 10.5183, i. e., in a programmatic context, where avena is used to denote ‘traditional pastoral’84, and

78 79 80

81

82

83 84

paiuolo 1973, 105, Messina 1975, 79, Friedrich 1976, 67 – 8, Griffin 1984, 148, Walter 1988, 30, Davis 1987, 45 – 6, Díaz–Cíntora 1989, xxv, Mackie 1989, 10, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 158, Pearce 1990, 96, Schröder 1991, 22, 119, 121 – 2, Amat 1991, xxv–xxvi, 32, Vozza 1993, 287—90, Esposito 1996, 24, 31 – 2, Vinchesi 1996, 9, 108, 2002, 148, Cupaiuolo 1997, 122, Hubbard 1998, 168 and n.42, Schubert 1998, 64, Gibson 2004, 3, 12, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 212, Monella 2009, 75 and n.23. A less convincing candidate is Lucan, cf. Herrmann 1952, 33 – 4, Casaceli 1982, 103 and n.29. While admitting that Tityrus of the fourth Calpurnian eclogue is most probably a mask of Vergil, Hubaux 1930, 179 ff. also envisages the possibility of a second Tityrus, a contemporary of the Neronian poet, as the masque of Tityrus of the third Calpurnian eclogue. At least in opinion of the post-Vergilian ancient criticism, cf. Mart. 8.55.7 – 12, on the basis of Verg. Ecl. 6.3 – 5. Cf. Schetter 1975, 6. A further catchword of Callimachean poetological undertones. For the poetological undertones of Hyblaeus, cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 97, Pearce 1990, 96, Schröder 1991, 123. For Hyblaea avena as a metonymy for bucolic poetry, cf. Verdière 1954, 248; see also Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 212. For Iollas as a pastoral mask, cf. (Annaeus Cornutus) Herrmann 1952, 38 – 9, Verdière 1954, 58, Messina 1975, 79; for an account of older views, cf. Cesareo 1931, 174. Again what matters in my reading is the pastoral notion of poetic succession suggested through Iollas and not the potential historical symbolisms of his name. See also Korzeniewski 1971, 41, 97, Cizek 1972, 374, Thill 1979, 50 – 2, 490 – 4, Pearce 1990, 95 – 6, Schröder 1991, 120, Vozza 1993, 288, Esposito 1996, 23, Vinchesi 1996, 108, 2002, 148 and n.39, Hubbard 1998, 169 and n.43, Gibson 2004, 3 – 4, Simon 2007, 55 – 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 212. Cf. Amat 1991, 109, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 212. Meliboeus acknowledges the pastoral and the Callimachean – neoteric character of Tityrus’ slender poetics with the words silvestrem tenui musam meditaris avena (Ecl. 1.2), and the elegiac Gallus (Ecl. 10.51) expresses his willingness to adhere to pastoral ‘generic rules’, as a means for alleviating his elegiac distress, by declaring carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor avena.

The Introductory Narrative

257

the motif of the orphic syndrome in vv. 60 – 1 (the appeasing of wild bulls85), as a result of Vergil’s pastoral avena, which possesses the properties of the orphic lyre (vv. 65 – 6: qui posset avena praesonuisse chelyn 86), closely associated with the impact of pastoral song and Vergil as a pastoral poet (cf. Verg. Ecl. 3.46, 4.55 – 7, 6.27 – 30, 69 – 71, 8.2 – 487). The readers’ expectations for a song of traditional pastoral thematic and Callimachean slenderness are further falsified by Meliboeus’ subsequent remarks. His imagery of a Naias, a pastoral Nymph, adorning the bucolic poet88 (vv. 68 – 9) with red acanthus, a plant also having the sanction of ‘traditional pastoral’ (cf. Theocr. 1.55, Verg. Ecl. 3.45, 4.20, see also Nemes. 2.5), goes back to Verg. Ecl. 6.21 – 289, where another Nymph, Aegle, v. 21: Naiadum pulcherrima, paints Silenus’ face and brows with mulberry crimson. Similarly, the pathetic fallacy motif of the submissive beasts and a halted oak (vv. 66 – 7) 90 constitutes a further pastoral ‘generic marker’. Nevertheless, Meliboeus qualifies Vergil, whom Corydon aspires to imitate91, as vates, v. 65, a term having poetological associations beyond pastoral, denoting the poet who is involved in the political arena of the Augustan period92. Lycidas in the ninth Vergilian eclogue, despite having lost his pastoral memory, has not yet grown so 85 But note here with Schröder 1991, 121 the Ovidian and not Vergilian wording of truces…tauros, Met. 7.111, 8.297, 9.80–1, also suggesting a movement away from Vergilian pastoral wording, as observed elsewhere as well, cf. also pp. 217, 244, 258, 275. Cf. also Ahl 1984, 67: ‘Corydon and his brother have sung…an Ovidian song in praise of the Golden Age’. 86 Quite imaginative and rather inconclusive is Verdière’s 1985, 1893 reading of chelyn as symbolising epic poetry, the Aeneid in particular, or Lucan’s epic poetry. Chelys is a musical instrument frequently associated with Apollo (cf. e. g. [Ov.] Epist. Sapph. 181); for a refutation of Verdière with some justification, cf. Schröder 1991, 127 – 8. 87 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 249, Langholf 1990, 362, Pearce 1990, 97, Schröder 1991, 129, Hubbard 1998, 169 and n.44, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 212 – 3. 88 Schröder 1991, 130 sees here an instance of ‘bukolische Dichterweihe’. 89 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 41, Vinchesi 1996, 46 – 7, Simon 2007, 50, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 214. 90 For a version of the orphic syndrome here, cf. also Amat 1991, 39 and n.80, Esposito 1996, 25 – 6. 91 Note in v. 64 the verb laboras, suggesting a relatively long-term and careful poetic process, aspiring to Callimachean slender ideals, not unknown to pastoral (Theocr. 7.51, Verg. Ecl. 10.1; cf. also introduction, pp. 15, 24 – 5, 34). 92 Vozza 1993, 289 remarks: ‘e simbolo del potere della poesia…incarna l’ esigenza augustea di una poesia civile e morale’.

258

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

distanced from the ‘pastoral ideal’ as to claim this title for himself (cf. chapter 5, p. 199) 93. In Corydon’s case however this aspiration becomes more explicit and is further seconded by Meliboeus’ v. 64: magna petis, where the adjective magnus arguably alludes to Corydon’s aspirations towards the genus grande. The syntagm at the beginning of the line as here (v. 64: magna petis) has several Ovidian parallels, as it plausibly comes from instances such as Ov. Met. 2.54, see also 14.108, Fast. 3.31394. The ‘unpastoral’, Ovidian and mainly epic expression (two out three instances come from the Ovidian ‘epic’) seem to suggest, on a stylistic level, a movement away from ‘traditional pastoral’, which will take firmer hold further down. Meliboeus’ remarks in vv. 73 ff., concerning the quality of Corydon’s imminent song, also indicate this feeling of a ‘generic transcendence’: Corydon’s pastoral song (v. 74: fistula) should not be so fragilis (= delicate95, v. 74: fragili…buxo), as it is when the subject matter of his lyrics is Alexis. Corydon’s past poetic production and its motifs (‘pastoral love’) 96 is described here by means of the well-known fragilis-catchword denoting poetic slenderness of the Callimachean persuasion. Instead, Corydon’s future poetic quality should be worthy of a consul (vv. 76 – 7: canales exprime qui dignas cecinerunt consule silvas), an allusion to Verg. Ecl. 4.3: si canimus silvas, silvae sint consule dignae, i. e., an intertext97 also suggesting 93 For the poet as vates, cf. mainly Newman 1967, passim. See also Esposito 1996, 25 and n.11, Simon 2007, 65 – 6. 94 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 165, Schröder 1991, 124, Esposito 1996, 25 and n.10, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 212, Fucecchi 2009, 45. 95 Cf. Schröder 1991, 133, who reads the adjective in the sense of ‘‘zarten’, ‘kraftlosen’ Ton’. 96 Cf. also Hubaux 1930, 223, Korzeniewski 1971, 97. See also Amat 1991, 109 – 10, who also sees here a particular ‘référence amusée à la deuxième bucolique de Virgile’, and Keene 1969, 102, Verdière 1954, 165, 1966, 165, Davis 1987, 46, Vinchesi 1996, 111, Paschalis 1996, 143, Martin 2003, 80, Gibson 2004, 2, 4, Vallat 2006, http://, Simon 2007, 56 – 7, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 215. Schmidt 1969, 192 draws a distinction, within pastoral boundaries, ‘zwischen höherer und niedrigerer Bukolik’; thus Verg. Ecl. 2 represents the latter variant, whereas Verg. Ecl. 4 exemplifies the higher form of bucolic song. More plausibly Leach 1973, 70 draws a distinction between ‘the fragile, personal art of pastoral love song’ and an ‘elevated, historically oriented mode’. 97 Cf. also Cesareo 1931, 178, Verdière 1954, 36, 165, 1966, 165, Keene 1969, 102, Korzeniewski 1971, 41, Joly 1974, 42 – 3, Messina 1975, 80, Friedrich 1976, 149, 154, Correa 1977, 153, Gagliardi 1984, 60 and n.38, Davis 1987, 46, Mackie 1989, 10, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 159 and n.31, Pearce 1990, 97 – 8, Schröder 1991, 136, Amat 1991, 110, Paschalis 1996, 143, Vinchesi

The Song Exchange

259

a wish for ‘generic re-evaluation’, a movement away from ‘traditional pastoral’ towards more elevated poetic trends. A linguistic tell-tale sign of innovation is that in his description of a new panegyric pastoral genre, Meliboeus uses a pq_tom kec|lemom (for pastoral) in order to refer to the musical instrument which accompany this new genre, namely canales 98 in vv. 76 – 7, and the equally unknown in pastoral respirare instead of resonare in v. 7499 in order to describe the playing of the pastoral fistula.

The Song Exchange According to the typical pattern of a singing match, Meliboeus, assuming the role of an umpire, establishes the succession of song performances, with Corydon singing first and his brother Amyntas following100, vv. 79 – 81. Corydon begins by an invocation to the inspiring god, a common gambit in ancient literature. However, his invocation has strong ‘unpastoral’ undertones, as it refers first to Jupiter, v. 82: ab Iove principium; in the case of the third Vergilian eclogue, it was shown that this appeal derives mainly from Theocritus’ encomium of 1996, 46, 111, Hubbard 1998, 169, Martin 2003, 76 and n.8, 80, Gibson 2004, 5, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 215. Cf. also Clausen 1994, 126, Hubbard 1998, 76 – 86 for the ‘generic ambivalence’ of the fourth Vergilian eclogue. 98 For this Calpurnian hapax, see also Merone 1967, 27, Keene 1969, 102, Korzeniewski 1971, 97, Messina 1975, 108, Novelli 1980, 31, Gagliardi 1984, 60 and n.38, Armstrong 1986, 120, Schröder 1991, 134 – 5, Di Lorenzo–Pellegrino 2008, 215, and further down, p. 276. 99 Cf. especially Novelli 1980, 31, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 214 – 5 and further below, p. 276. 100 The song exchange presents several textual problems, mainly as to the attribution of the exchanged strophes and the alleged loss of a strophe; the allocation followed here is that of Duff and Duff 1934. For a comprehensive discussion of the relevant textual issues in the Calpurnian bibliography, cf. especially Schröder 1991, 139 – 45. See also Korzeniewski 1971, 98 – 9, Fuchs 1973, 229 and n.3, Friedrich 1976, 150, Castagna 1982, 159 – 69, p. 165 in particular, Pearce 1990, 99, Amat 1991, 33, Simon 2007, 79 and n.145, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 15, 219 – 20, Vinchesi 2009a, 581 – 2. Boswell 1994, 67 and n.74, based on the term frater (cf. Calp. 1.8 and 4.17, 78), believes that Corydon and Amyntas are not brothers but homosexual lovers; for a refutation of his unconvincing argument, see Hubbard 1998, 164 and n.38. For frater as possibly simply denoting friendship between the pastoral figures of the eclogue, cf. Cesareo 1931, 159, Messina 1975, 78 and n.78.

260

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

Ptolemy (Id. 17) 101, and, more importantly, appeals to a god not closely related to the pastoral pantheon, cf. pp. 111 – 2. Corydon draws a distinction between his output, on the one hand, and astronomical / didactic poetry, on the other, suggested by his reference to the sky and Atlas’ Olympian load (vv. 82 – 3) 102, and thus dissociates his work from a genre entitled to the invocation of Jupiter. Nevertheless, he does not invoke a distinct pastoral god of the established pastoral pantheon, but the imperial god (vv. 84 – 6). Corydon’s political god is characterised by his praesenti numine (v. 84), alluding to Tityrus’ praesentis…divos of the first Vergilian eclogue again (v. 41) 103 ; yet, whereas in Vergil the divine imperial figure is credited with ensuring Tityrus’ permanence in the ‘pastoral realm’, no preoccupation with the restoration of pastoral order appears in Calpurnius’ case. Corydon instead focuses on the political power of this divine figure and his ability to secure eternal peace (v. 85: perpetuamque regit iuvenili robore 104 pacem). Crucially, similar concerns for peace also appear in the Vergilian corpus, but only in the fourth eclogue, 4.17: pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem, i. e., in the least pastoral poem,

101 Cf. also Cic. Leg. 2.7.13 (= Arat. 1.1, see also Hubbard 1998, 171), Germ. Arat. 1, V. Max. 1.pr.1.17, Quint. Inst. 10.1.46, Gibson 2006, 94, Simon 2007, 80 and n.147, 81 – 2. For v. 82 also alluding to Verg. Ecl. 3.60, see also Cesareo 1931, 180 and n.1, Verdière 1954, 249, Paladini 1956, 531 and n.2, Keene 1969, 103, Korzeniewski 1971, 41, Leach 1973, 71, Joly 1974, 54, 64 and n.85, Messina 1975, 81, Friedrich 1976, 150, Gagliardi 1984, 60 and n.40, Pearce 1990, 98, Amat 1991, 110, Vinchesi 1996, 23 and n.31, 2009a, 575, Gibson 2004, 5 – 6 (his view of a closer association with Germ. Arat. 1 – 2 is more plausible, as both texts (Calp. 4 and Germ.) replace Jupiter with the emperor / a political figure as a song-inspirer; see also La Bua 1999, 294 – 5), Simon 2007, 80 and n.146, Di Lorenzo–Pellegrino 2008, 217. Castagna 1982, 161 – 2 convincingly associates the present tag mainly with Theocr. 17 (a not bucolic idyll) and Verg. Ecl. 3 (for the ‘unpastoral’ character of the herdsmen in this eclogue, cf. chapter 2, pp. 87 ff.), as the Calpurnian instance shares with its first intertext a recusatio, after Jupiter’s mention, for proceeding with the very encomium and with its second intertext a combination of Jupiter with Apollo. 102 For the suggestion of an astronomical didactic poem here, cf. Schröder 1991, 146. 103 For praesens here possibly in the sense of 1pivam^r, cf. Sauter 1934, 52 – 3, Gibson 2006, 93 – 4. See also Keene 1969, 103, Korzeniewski 1971, 42, Pearce 1990, 98, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 217, Vinchesi 2009a, 576 – 7. 104 Verdière 1987, 137 – 8 plausibly reads in robore an allusion to the notion of fortis suggested by the name of Nero; see also Schubert 1998, 67.

The Song Exchange

261

something which suggests, as often remarked, cf. pp. 6, 43 – 4, 45 – 6, 258 – 9, the ‘transgression’ of ‘traditional pastoral’105. Amyntas resumes the ‘unpastoral’ drift of Corydon’s invocation with a second appeal to the emperor as inspiring deity, but this time with Apollo as his comrade (vv. 87 – 8: comitatus Apolline Caesar respiciat), resorting to another well-known motif of chiefly the Neronian period106. He invites the political god not to look down on hills that even Phoebus and Jupiter appreciate (vv. 88 – 9), thus resembling Corydon of the second Vergilian eclogue, who tried to entice his beloved Alexis by referring to the gods who had deigned to dwell in the woods (v. 60: habitarunt di quoque silvas). Vergil’s Corydon did not specify which gods he meant, but Calpurnius’ Amyntas specifically mentions Phoebus and Jupiter, although the latter has no particular association, as elaborated in chapter 2; see previously, pp. 259 – 60, with ‘pastoral space’ and pastoral as a genre. Also, in Amyntas’ lines the ‘green cabinet’ is not praised for the usual bucolic delights it offers (a locus amoenus, the pleasure of song, etc.), but for the fact that laurel and its companion tree (vv. 90 – 1) grow there. Laurel is crucially presented in its relation to the imperial triumph (v. 90: visuraque saepe triumphos) 107, an association belonging to the contemporary military reality, to the ‘epic code’ and its poetry, rather than to pastoral. The laurel’s companion tree should be either the oak or the myrtle108 ; yet both are often used in epic contexts, as the myrtle is associated with the ovatio, while the laurel is used in triumph 109, something which may account for their selection here. Laurel with myrtle also appear in the Vergilian intertext of the second eclogue, vv. 54 – 5110 ; but whereas in the Vergilian precedent the trees function simply as love-tokens, gifts that the rusticus Corydon bestows on his urban love, Alexis, in order to entice him in the ‘bucolic 105 The motif is common, on the other hand, in Neronian pastoral, cf. also Calp. 1.42, Eins. 2.21 – 34, Schröder 1991, 148. 106 Cf. Vinchesi 2002, 148 – 9; see also Verdière 1992, 35, Rosati 2002, 238 – 49. 107 Cf. also Leach 1973, 72, Friedrich 1976, 11, Vinchesi 1996, 113, 2009a, 579, Schubert 1998, 67. 108 Cf. Cesareo 1931, 183, Keene 1969, 104 – 5, Korzeniewski 1971, 98, Pearce 1990, 99, Amat 1991, 110, Simon 2007, 94 – 5, Vinchesi 2009a, 580. For an extensive account of the (far from unanimous) relevant literature concerning the identification of this plant, cf. especially Schröder 1991, 152 – 4. 109 Cf. Verdière 1954, 249, Vinchesi 2009a, 580 and n.50. 110 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 249, Paladini 1956, 523 – 4, Korzeniewski 1971, 43, Langholf 1990, 368, Vinchesi 1996, 113, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 218. See also Nemes. 2.49.

262

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

realm’, the same combination of trees in the Calpurnian eclogue exhibits clear epic nuances unrelated to the ‘traditional pastoral codes’. The epic colouring of the Calpurnian lines under discussion is further increased, on a stylistic level, by a common epic linguistic marker, the use of the joining couplet, que…que… (vv. 90 – 1: visuraque…vicinaque) 111. This association of Caesar with Jupiter, fashionable in the literature of the period, continues in Corydon’s following lines, where Jupiter is depicted in his traditional112, albeit ‘unpastoral’, function of presiding over the heavens (v. 92: polos etiam qui temperat igne geluque, cf. also Sen. Ep. 107.11). ‘Pastoral space’ (and by implication the pastoral genre as well113) is nonetheless defended here thanks to the account of Zeus’ visits to the Cretan meadows (v. 95: Cresia rura). In imitation of the well-known image of both Zeus and the emperor holding his thunderbolt114, the god is here depicted as laying down his thunderbolt (v. 94: posito paulisper fulmine), also a symbol of epic poetry (cf. Call. Aet. 1.20 Pf., Ov. Am. 2.1.15), in order to recline in a lush grotto (v. 95: viridique reclinis in antro), i. e., in a typical pastoral landscape calling to mind Tityrus’ programmatic lentus in umbra (Verg. Ecl. 1.4, cf. also v. 75: viridi proiectus in antro, Nemes. 3.26) 115 of the first Vergilian eclogue and the antrum setting, the place of pastoral poetry exchange, in the fifth Vergilian eclogue (5.6, 19, see also chapter 4, pp. 154 – 5). Despite all these bona fide pastoral signs, the lay that Jupiter listens to is not associated with the qualities of pastoral song, but instead once again points to the ‘epic code’: it is about a war dance that the Kouretes danced in order to cover Jupiter’s cries as a baby, according to Call. 111 For the epic character of the combination, see also Schubert 1998, 67. An epic colouring may also be observed in Corydon’s previous reference to Jupiter (vv. 82 ff.), as both aether in v. 82 and pondus molitur (v. 83) are favourites of epic diction, cf. Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 19, 216; see also Vinchesi 2009a, 577 – 8. Thus, apart from their thematic affinity, the two first strophes of the opening song exchange are further combined on the basis of their epic linguistic diction as well, suggesting, on the stylistic level as well, a ‘generic redirection’ towards loftier poetic trends of the genus grande. 112 Cf. Schröder 1991, 155 – 6. 113 Cf. also Castagna 1982, 162. 114 Cf. Schröder 1991, 158, Gibson 2006, 127, 228. 115 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 43, Pearce 1990, 101, Schröder 1991, 159, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 219, Vinchesi 2009a, 581 and n.55; see also Leach 1973, 72, 94 and n.44.

The Song Exchange

263

Hymn to Zeus, 52 ff., probably the model of the line, v. 96116. Amyntas continues with the motif of the calming of the wind as a result of a divine epiphany / intervention (cf. also in a similar vein Eur. Bacch. 1084 – 5, Theocr. 22.19, Hor. Carm. 1.12.30, Verg. G. 1.27, etc.117), also confirmed by the resonance of Pan’s reeds, v. 101: nec mora; Parrhasiae sonuerunt sibila cannae 118. However, this motif, in all probability a variant on the panegyric topos of the emperor’s command over nature119, is here associated with the elimination of a traditional pastoral ‘generic marker’, that of a loud nature with echoing effects and whispering trees: the woods are muted at Caesar’s name, the grove’s boughs are at peace (vv. 97 – 101). In the following exchanges an intertextual association with the fourth and the fifth Vergilian eclogue emerges; this is not without significance, since, as discussed in chapter 4, pp. 168 ff., Ecl. 5 concerns the elaboration of a ‘new pastoral’ which also incorporates panegyric, while eclogue 4, the least pastoral of Vergil’s eclogues, is often read as a mode of ‘generic transcendence’, see above, pp. 260 – 1. Therefore, the association of the following strophes with these Vergilian intertexts is a 116 Cf. Hubaux 1930, 200, Verdière 1954, 168 – 9, Korzeniewski 1971, 98, Díaz–Cíntora 1989, xxv–xxvi, Amat 1991, 110, Schröder 1991, 159. The Kouretes, young men from Crete, danced this war-like dance every year on Mt. Ida calling on Jupiter to bless the year to come, cf. Nisetich 2001, 202; see also Cesareo 1931, 183 – 4, Keene 1969, 105, Vinchesi 1996, 113, 2009a, 580 – 1 and n.51. 117 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 99, Castagna 1982, 165, Schröder 1991, 164, Simon 2007, 89 – 90, Vinchesi 2009a, 582. For an association of the motif with the elimination of political turmoil, cf. also Verdière 1954, 37, 1985, 1853. On the basis of a similarity discerned among Matt. 8.23 – 7, Marc. 4.35 – 41, Lu. 8.22 – 5, on the one hand, and Calp. 4.97 – 101, on the other, Verdière 1956 – 7, 89 – 92 reads here a messianic rumour current in Nero’s time; see also Spadaro 1969, 34 – 5, 39 – 40, Messina 1975, 83, Verdière 1985, 1852 – 3. 118 The reading Pharsaliae, as offered by the manuscript tradition, is not accepted here (cf. also Postgate 1905, 257 – 60) as ‘utterly alien to the immediate context’, according to Heslin’s 1997, 590 – 1 (the quotation comes from p. 590) compelling remarks. I hereby follow the emendation of Heinsius to Parrhasiae vs. Bardon 1968, 227, Messina 1975, 82 and n.87, Amat 1991, 111 claiming an allusion to the image of the peacemaker prince (cf. also Calp. 1.58 f., Vinchesi 1996, 115, 2009a, 583); yet for a refutation of this thesis, cf. Heslin op. cit and n.11. See also Mackie 1989, 10, Di Salvo 1990a, 278 – 9, 1991, 311, Chinnici 2009, 136 and n.27. 119 For this motif, cf. also Coleman 2006, 112, 201, 206.

264

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

sign of the changing ‘generic character’ of the Calpurnian pastoral poem under discussion. As an instance of this, Corydon (vv. 102 – 6) describes an image of cattle fertility / prosperity as the outcome of Caesar’s arrival, equated to the advent of the rustic goddess Pales120. Both main images of the Calpurnian aurea aetas, the sheep loaded with abundant milk (v. 103) and the wonderful re-growth of their fleece after a recent shearing (v. 104), have their parallels in the Golden Age imagery of the fourth Vergilian eclogue121 (vv. 21 – 2: ipsae lacte domum referent distenta capellae ubera, and 43 – 4: aries…mutabit vellera 122, as the result of the divine baby’s birth) and significantly are not connected with the milk profusion picture of pre-Vergilian pastoral, which is associated with the pastoral bliss caused by the presence of the pastoral lover, cf. [Theocr.] 8.41 – 2. Further down (vv. 112 – 6), in describing the agricultural prosperity as being due to Caesar’s influence, Corydon draws the image of crops free from the choking caused by infertile tare or barren oats; both the image and its wording (vv. 115 – 6: nec praefocata malignum / messis habet lolium nec inertibus albet avenis) allude again to Verg. Ecl. 5123, namely v. 37: infelix lolium et steriles nascuntur avenae, where this reversal of pastoral and georgic order (cf. also Verg. G. 1.154124) is due to Pales’ leaving the fields because of Daphnis’, the archetypical pastoral singer’s, death, v. 35: ipsa Pales agros atque ipse reliquit Apollo 125. The particular motif (a combination of lolium and avena), however, that Calpurnius incorporates in his panegyric strophes here is associated with pastoral values of no specific panegyric undertones, drawn as it is on Mopsus’ song describing Daphnis’ passing away instead of Menalcas’ panegyric singing account of the sidus Iulium. Calpurnius thus reverses the Vergilian imagery: whereas the Vergilian Pales leaves the rustic countryside as a sign of mourning over the loss of the highest pastoral value, thus causing severe damage to the harvest, the Calpurnian Caesar, as if he were Pales (cf. v. 106), brings with his presence a restored agricultural bliss, as it 120 Castagna 1982, 165 speaks about: ‘prodigi dell’ apparizione di Nerone come quelli di un dio Nomios’; see also Simon 2007, 87 – 8. 121 Cf. also Leach 1973, 73, Merfeld 1999, 90. 122 Cf. also Messina 1975, 84, Langholf 1990, 367, Schröder 1991, 169 – 70, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 221, Vinchesi 2009a, 584. 123 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 171, Korzeniewski 1971, 45, Leach 1973, 73 – 4, Schröder 1991, 180, Hubbard 1998, 171 – 2, Simon 2007, 88 – 9. 124 Cf. Verdière 1954, 171, Keene 1969, 108, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 223, Chinnici 2009, 137 – 8. 125 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 171.

The Song Exchange

265

happens in the Vergilian intertext with the deified Daphnis, i. e., Julius Caesar, of Menalcas’ and not Mopsus’ song, an intertext functioning in its turn as the model for the georgic abundance of vv. 112 ff.126, a rich harvest as the result of a divine effect. Whereas however the Palesimage is associated in Vergil with the loss of the pastoral value par excellence, that is pastoral song, as the result of Daphnis’ death, in the Calpurnian refashioning everything simply works towards the praise of the emperor. Additionally, the imagery as well as the wording of the passage appears to be influenced by Vergil’s Georgics (vv. 114 – 5: legumina plenis vix resonant siliquis, cf. Verg. G. 1.74: unde prius laetum siliqua quassante legumen 127), something further enhancing a sense of ‘generic alteration’. Amyntas too displays in his lines (107 – 11) motifs evoking the Vergilian eclogues: the efflorescence, the bloom he describes as a natural reaction to the sound of Caesar’s name has its parallel in Verg. Ecl. 7.53 – 6, where junipers and chestnuts bloom, fruits are in abundance and all nature cheers because of Alexis’ presence. But in the Vergilian intertext emphasis is given on the ‘pastoral ideal’ of blissful love (cf. also [Theocr.] 8.41 – 8), secured by the presence of the beloved128, while in the Calpurnian treatment this ‘idealised pastoral moment’ simply functions as a foil to the emperor’s panegyric again; what is more, the image of the sluggish earth warming to life and blossoming with flowers (vv. 109 – 10) alludes to a similar image in Verg. 4.18 – 20: nullo munuscula cultu / errantis hederas passim cum baccare tellus /…fundet 129, thus bringing Amyntas’ lines too even closer to the pastoral ‘generic innovation’ of the fourth Vergilian eclogue. Furthermore, the motif of the mute worshipper, represented by the picture of an arbutus tree130 paying silent respect to the deified emperor (vv. 108 – 9: quem sic taciturna verentur arbuta), also found in other literary genres (cf. Hor. Carm. 3.1.2, Prop. 4.6.1, Ov. Met. 3.18, Sen. Ep. 115.4131), stands here in direct opposition to the highest pre-Calpurnian pastoral value of the sonorous 126 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 177. 127 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 171, Paladini 1956, 334, Keene 1969, 108, Joly 1974, 64 and n.84, Messina 1975, 84, Korzeniewski 1971, 45, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 222, Chinnici 2009, 137. 128 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 172 and n.47. 129 Iners, v. 109, may be here equivalent to incultus. Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 100 vs. Schröder 1991, 173 – 4. 130 Merone 1967, 40 – 1 reads here arbuta as equivalent to arbores; cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 45: ‘die Bäume’, Schröder 1991, 172 – 3. 131 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 172, Nisbet – Rudd 2004, 7.

266

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

nature, as often remarked, cf. pp. 235, 263. Finally, a sense of ‘departing’ from ‘traditional pastoral’ is also imparted by the image of the spellbound tree coming into bloom as the result of the divine intervention of the political god again, v. 111: stupefacta regerminat arbos. This motif of the spellbound nature also appears in the Vergilian eclogues, but only as a result of the power that poetry possesses, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.3: quorum stupefactae carmine lynces 132 ; thus an asset associated in Vergilian pastoral with the highest pastoral value is in Calpurnian pastoral once more connected to the panegyric praise of the emperor. The emperor’s panegyric continues with a reference to a new legislation passed under Nero’s reign, which enabled a ploughman, here described by means of the ‘unpastoral’ (georgic) term fossor 133 (v. 118), to keep for himself any treasure he discovered while working in his field134. Once more, the bucolic disguise is put aside: Amyntas gives a wealth of legalistic information, normally alien to pastoral concerns. It is true that even in Vergil one may come across legal details, such as the peculium and the related urban issues of the first Vergilian eclogue; but these instances of legalistic terminology have often been interpreted as ‘unpas132 For a compelling reading of stupefacta as ‘spellbound because of the divine epiphany’, cf. also Spadaro 1969, 35, Friedrich 1976, 186 and n.57, Schröder 1991, 176 – 7; see also Keene 1969, 107: ‘awe-struck by the emperor’s presence’. For a reading of the participle as equivalent to ‘barren’, ‘withered’, cf. especially Merone 1967, 36, Champlin 1978, 106 and n.48: ‘a tree dormant for the winter’. Haupt 1875, 387, Hubaux–Hicter 1949, 428 – 9, Verdière 1954, 250, Keene 1969, 4, Townend 1980, 167 and n.7 relate the term with the ficus Ruminalis (cf. Tac. Ann. 13.58); see also Spadaro 1969, 30. For an association of the image with spring-time, cf. Gustin 1947, 324 – 5, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 222; see also Gagliardi 1984, 70. Schackleton-Bailey 1978, 320 emends in stipesque; for a convincing refutation of the emendation, see Schröder 1991, 177. 133 Cf. Schröder 1991, 185: ‘unbukolische Berufsbezeichnung’. 134 For a legal reference here, cf. Bonfante 1912, 123 – 42, Hubaux – Hicter 1949, 425 – 37, Verdière 1954, 37 – 8, 251 – 2, Momigliano 1944, 98, Scheda 1969, 62, Spadaro 1969, 36 – 7 (for a good overview of the issue, cf. also pp. 31 – 5), Korzeniewski 1971, 100, Friedrich 1976, 11 – 2, Amat 1991, xxiii, 34, 111 – 2, Vinchesi 1996, 25, 116 – 7, 2009a, 585, Schubert 1998, 69 and n.85, Simon 2007, 96, Chinnici 2009, 138; see also Bartalucci 1976, 94, Horsfall 1997, 170, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 223. Castagna 1982, 167, Braund 1983, 67 – 8 and Schröder 1991, 183 do not read the lines as necessarily symbolising the passing of a new legislation but as suggesting the feeling of securitas in the Neronian age; see also Merfeld 1999, 90 and n.3. For a refutation of this rather unconvincing view, cf. also Schubert 1998, 69 and n.85.

The Song Exchange

267

toral’ in character, betraying an urban intrusion onto traditional bucolic values (cf. also relevant remarks in chapter 3, pp. 134 – 5; see also pp. 100 and n.56, 186 – 7, 251) within Vergilian pastoral. Calpurnius thus once again imitates Vergil on points where the latter ‘transcends’ the pastoral genre, incorporating alien matters in the pastoral register, which seem to function in the Vergilian pastoral corpus as well as a foil to ‘pure’ bucolic idealism. What is more, the very image of a ploughman (fossor: v. 118, cf. Verg. G. 2.264, arator: v. 119) turning up his field with his plough (vv. 119 – 21, presso…aratro – v. 121) further indicates, on the level of linguistic assimilation as well, not pastoral but georgic interests135, cf. Verg. G. 1.45; see also 119, 213 and the georgic sensibilities of the Corpus Tibullianum, 3.7.161. Corydon retorts by describing pastoral festivals establishing the Neronian notion of securitas against the menace of an external war. He relates a feast of Ceres (vv. 122 – 3), a ritual of Bacchus (vv. 123 – 4: Vindemia or Liberalia) and finally in vv. 125 – 6 the Compitalia 136, as evidenced by the image of games held at the crossroads. Although the combination of Bacchus and Ceres seems to be the norm in Latin literature (cf. Lucr. 5.14 – 5, Var. rust. 1.1.5, Verg. G. 1.7, etc.), appearing in the Vergilian pastoral as well, cf. Verg. Ecl. 5.79, this Calpurnian passage displays the image of religious festivals as a means for recreation with song and games. However, these are settings generically not sanctioned by earlier pastoral (yet, cf. Eins. 2.15 ff.), but appearing in other literary genres, mainly in the Vergilian Georgics (cf. 1.338 – 50, 2.380 – 96, 527 – 31137). Thus once again an initial anticipation for a traditional pastoral song seems to be materialised as ‘deviation’ rather towards georgic trends within a panegyric setting. Amyntas follows up by recounting the beneficial effects of the Augustan peace on the restored musical order of the ‘pastoral space’ (v.

135 For a general georgic colouring, cf. also Schubert 1998, 69, though without much detail. See also Merfeld 1999, 91 and n.2, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 224. 136 Cf. Verdière 1954, 37, 173, Keene 1969, 109 – 10, Korzeniewski 1971, 101, Bartalucci 1976, 97, Schröder 1991, 187, 189 – 90, Amat 1991, 112, Vinchesi 1996, 25, 119, 2009a, 585. 137 Cf. also Castagna 1982, 167, Schröder 1991, 187. See also Paladini 1956, 334 – 5, Korzeniewski 1971, 45 – 6, Vinchesi 1996, 25, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 225; see also Verg. A. 8.717, Hor. Epist. 1.1.49, Ov. Fast. 1.669.

268

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

127: meis…montibus 138). This motif, i. e., music restored / secured due to the intervention of a political god, significantly has its pastoral parallel in the first programmatic Vergilian eclogue139, where (vv. 9 – 10) Tityrus still enjoys producing pastoral song thanks to a similar divine interference: ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum / ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti. The ‘generic identity’ of the secured / restored song is clear enough in the Vergilian eclogue; it is Callimachean – neoteric pastoral: this is evident from the use of the term agrestis qualifying the flute and of the verb ludere pointing, as often observed, cf. pp. 34, 62, 249, 282, to poetic production of the genus tenue with neoteric – Callimachean aspirations. In the Calpurnian setting, however, matters are no longer clear. Amyntas does not refer exclusively to the re-established pastoral song, symbolised here chiefly by the image of the reed-pipes (v. 131: calamos, a bucolic musical instrument), which are immune to the destructive effect of war trumpets. Cf. also the picture of a song preserved on the bark of a tree140 (vv. 130 – 1, for such inscriptions of pastoral songs, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 5.13 – 4, Calp. 1.22 – 3, 3.43 – 4, Nemes. 1.28 – 9). Yet Amyntas is also concerned with iambic and choral song (vv. 128 – 9: ter pede lenta ferire gramina and v. 129: licet et cantare choreis) 141, further underlying the sense of ‘generic fluidity’ which can be felt throughout the poem. Corydon’s following lines (vv. 132 – 6) are more traditionally pastoral in character, dealing as they do with the feeling of safety that even pastoral gods experience under the divine protection of the new emperor. Pan, Faunus and Nymphs are, as often remarked (cf. especially chapter 4 and introduction, pp. 18 – 9, 157 – 60), distinct members of the pastoral pantheon; Faunus, in particular, is depicted in a typical pastoral location, reclining in the shade of a locus amoenus (vv. 133 – 4, reminiscent of a similar scene with Tityrus lying sub tegmine fagi, lentus in umbra 138 For mons as a term denoting ‘pastoral space’, cf. also vv. 63, 88 with Schröder 1991, 190. 139 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 190 – 1. 140 Cf. also Slater 1994, 73, Hubbard 1998, 151 and n.18. 141 Korzeniewski 1971, 101 speaks of a dance ‘im Dreitakt nach der Art der Salier’; see also Verdière 1954, 173. Cf. also Schubert 1998, 70; he also reads, rather unconvincingly, cantare as symbolising bucolic or lyric poetry, although the verb is by no means strictly restricted to these genres only. For a possible (lyric) Horatian influence, especially Hor. Carm. 1.37.1 – 4, 3.18.15 – 6, cf. Paladini 1956, 335, Messina 1975, 85.

The Song Exchange

269

(Verg. Ecl. 1.1, 4)) 142. But the very motif of a god (Pan) returning to his natural milieu as a sign of the aurea aetas, vv. 132 – 3, brings us back to the fourth Vergilian eclogue, Verg. Ecl. 4.6143, where Vergil, as often remarked, cf. above pp. 260 – 1, sets out to ‘transcend’ the ‘pastoral code’; ‘pastoral orthodoxy’ is once more combined with markers pointing to ‘generic transcendence’. The pretense at ‘traditional bucolic poetry’, as elaborated until the Neronian panegyric pastoral literature, is totally given up in the final strophic exchange: Amyntas concentrates in his part on several features of the panegyric style144, such as wishes for long life and apotheosis (vv. 137 – 41, cf. also Hor. Carm. 1.2.45, Ov. Met. 15.868 – 70, Trist. 2.57, 5.2.52, 5.5.61, 5.11.25 – 6, Sen. Dial. 11.12.5, Luc. 1.46, Sil. 3.626 – 7, Stat. Silv. 1.1.105 – 7, 4.2.22, Mart. 5.65.15 – 6, 13.4.1145), the motif of a deity sent from heaven (vv. 137 – 8, as in Verg. Ecl. 4.7146 : iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto also not of a so pastoral provenance) and the wish for the emperor not to exchange his palace for the sky (v. 141, for this image of a celestial abode cf. also Verg. G. 1.503 – 4, Luc. 1.45 – 6, Stat. Silv. 1.1.106) 147. The same also holds true for Corydon’s verses, where one comes across the following: the motif of a god disguised in the form of someone else (vv. 142 – 4), modeled in all probability on Hor. Carm. 1.2.41 – 3148, the qualification of the emperor as aeternus (v. 145, cf. also Ov. Fast. 3.421 – 2, Pont. 2.2.48, Stat. Th. 1.23 – 4149), the regere orbem / populos regere syntagm / 142 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 101. For Calp. 4.132 – 4 harking back to Hor. Carm. 1.17.1 – 3, cf. Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 159 and n.29. 143 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 161, Schubert 1998, 68, Gibson 2006, 225 – 6. See also Calp. 1.43 – 4, Eins. 2.23. 144 Cf. also Simon 2007, 83 – 6. 145 Cf. Hubaux 1930, 203, Cesareo 1931, 197 and n.1, Verdière 1954, 252 – 3, 1966, 166 and n.38, Keene 1969, 111 – 2, Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 37, Korzeniewski 1971, 47, Schröder 1991, 194 – 5, Merfeld 1999, 92 and nn.1, 2, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 227, Vinchesi 2009a, 586 and n.70. For panegyrical wishes for longevity, cf. Coleman 1988, 100; see also p. 214. 146 Cf. also Langholf 1990, 367. 147 For the panegyric character of these features, cf. also Schröder 1991, 194 – 7, Men. Rh. 2.377. See also Cesareo 1931, 195 – 6, Verdière 1954, 253, Joly 1974, 55, 64 and nn.88, 89, Schubert 1998, 70, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 228. 148 Cf. Verdière 1954, 253, Paladini 1956, 524, Keene 1969, 112 – 3, Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 33, Messina 1975, 87, Schröder 1991, 198 – 9, Merfeld 1999, 93 and n.1, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 228, Vinchesi 2009a, 587. 149 Cf. Schröder 1991, 200, Vinchesi 2009a, 587.

270

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

motif (vv. 144 – 5, Hor. Carm. 1.12.57, [Sen.] Octav. 489150), and finally the appeal to a god not to give up the peace he first established (vv. 145 – 6, cf. also Ov. Fast. 1.287 – 8151). All these motifs, as can be inferred from the (selected) citations above, elsewhere appear in several literary genres but not in pastoral. The only pastoral parallels come from Verg. Ecl. 4, namely 4.15: the apotheosis motif (ille deum vitam accipiet), 4.17: the regere orbem formulation and 4.46 – 7: the Parcae motif, where the goddesses are depicted as holding the thread of men’s lives; cf. also Calp. 4.139 – 40: vel potius mortale resolvite pensum / et date perpetuo caelestia fila metallo, although in the Calpurnian passage the image of the life-threads is associated with an appeal to gods in general and not to the Parcae in particular152. The intertexts thus direct the reader once again to the least pastoral Vergilian eclogue, where (see also above, pp. 243 – 4) the authorial voice ‘self-referentially’ acknowledges his ‘generic movement’ away from the earlier pastoral tradition. Despite an initial expectation for a time-honoured bucolic song, probably also based on Corydon’s alleged association with Tityrus-Vergil (vv. 60 – 3), Meliboeus’ verdict judges the two singing performances as untypical specimens of (traditional) pastoral, since pastoral song is presented by him in negative colours: rustic lays are fit for cloddish ears only (v. 148: obesis auribus apta). Once again, the highest value of the ‘green cabinet’, the basic feature of a pastoral identity is deconstructed; thus poetic qualities often associated with pastoral song, such as purity and sweetness (v. 150: tam liquidum, tam dulce) 153, which also constitute, especially the second, poetological markers of the genre, are transferred to songs not aspiring to traditional pastoral aesthetic choices but ‘deviating’ towards other literary genres154. Thus Corydon is not associated 150 Cf. Schröder 1991, 200, Vinchesi 2009a, 587. For populos regere as an epic tag, see Schröder 1991, 78 – 9, Vinchesi 2009a, 574 and n.14. 151 Cf. Schröder 1991, 200. 152 Cf. also Küppers 1985, 349 – 50. See also Paladini 1956, 336, Langholf 1990, 367, Merfeld 1999, 92. 153 Liquidus often qualifies poetry / song in Latin literature, cf. also Nisbet – Hubbard 1970, 283; in the Calpurnian instance the term seems to suggest the clear / unblemished character of the song (cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 257), as derived from liquere; it is thus about a basic asset of Callimachean poetics (of the pastoral genre as well) associated, as often remarked, cf. p. 84; see also pp. 59, 67, 246, with the clean, unpolluted water of the sacred spring in opposition to the filthy Assyrian river. 154 In a similar vein, Lycotas of Calp. 7 describes Corydon’s ‘unpastoral’ poetic account of the amphitheatre as dulce, vv. 20 – 2; cf. also Vozza 1993, 303 – 4.

The Song Exchange

271

with the father of the Roman pastoral, Vergil, whose pastoral reed he opted to make use of (vv. 60 – 3), but to Ovid, as suggested by the image of the Pelignian swarms in v. 151: quod Paeligna solent examina lambere nectar 155. Therefore, a certain confusion is discernible in traditional poetological attitudes and conceptions: traditional pastoral poetic production is presented in a negative instead of a positive light, and the pastoral poet is compared to Ovid instead of his generically default model, i. e., Vergil. Yet it is true that, especially in the last exchange, most of the topics hark back more to Ovid than to Vergil and, what is more, to a ‘less pastoral’ Vergil. Corydon accepts the poetic quality of his song, as evaluated by Meliboeus; he crucially describes his lyrics as tereti…versu (v. 152), where the adjective qualifying verse constitutes a further catchword of Callimachean – neoteric sensibilities of the genus tenue156 (cf. also chapter 3, pp. 131 – 2). However, this poetic quality, associated with traditional pastoral song as well, is here transferred, as in the case of the equally neoteric terms liquidus and dulcis, to Corydon’s recent singing performance in front of Meliboeus, i. e., to poetry ‘transcending’ bucolic trends in the direction of a panegyric with several non-pastoral intertexts (cf. also Calp. 1.93). This confusion of well-established poetological signs continues with the subsequent images: the appeal to the intervention of a political god in the hopes of securing pastoral fortune and as a consequence pastoral poetic production, cf. vv. 152 – 5, recalls once again the first Vergilian eclogue; the divine politician intervenes and thus secures Tityrus’ pastoral holdings and the continuation of his pastoral poetry, cf. pp. 260, 267 – 8. Similarly, Corydon asks Meliboeus to ensure for him, thanks to his association with a divine emperor, a homestead 155 Cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 257, Verdière 1954, 254, 1966, 166, 1992, 37, Keene 1969, 113, Korzeniewski 1971, 102, Messina 1975, 87, Bartalucci 1976, 99, 115 and n.44, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 159, Pearce 1990, 103, Schröder 1991, 204 – 6, Amat 1991, 113, Vinchesi 1996, 122, Hubbard 1998, 173, Martin 2003, 79, Simon 2007, 64, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 228, Fucecchi 2009, 43 – 4. For the significant influence of Ovidian poetry on Calpurnius Siculus, cf. especially Vinchesi 1996, 47, Magnelli 2006, 467, Fucecchi 2009, 41 – 65. 156 Cf. also Duff and Duff 1934, 257, Keene 1969, 114, who also associates teres with tenuis and deductum as poetological catchwords; see also Bartalucci 1976, 95 – 6 vs. Korzeniewski 1971, 47 and Schröder 1991, 208, who read the adjective in the sense of ‘geglätteten’, ‘wohlgeschliffenen’; however, the above translations also show the slender poetic quality of Corydon’s song.

272

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

and private pastures (the ‘material reward’ of an ‘imperial patronage’157), so that his songs can resonate on the mountains; but the quality of the pastoral song to resound is no longer associated with the traditional pastoral generic form of the first Vergilian eclogue, cf. p. 268, and, what is more, whereas the deus of Verg. Ecl. 1 simply restores pastoral order after the confiscations, Corydon’s appeal is associated with the wellknown panegyric request for materialistic assistance158, cf. e. g. Laus Pis. 216 – 9. The inversion of established poetological imagery occurs in the following picture as well, vv. 155 ff.: as elaborated above, cf. pp. 33 – 4, 67, 74, 77, 78, 106, 128, 221 – 2, 246, one of the most well-known poetological settings in Roman literature has Apollo, as a god of poetic inspiration of the genus tenue, admonish against ‘deviations’ towards the genus grande (cf. especially Verg. Ecl. 6.3 – 5 to which the present passage harks back159). Calpurnius substitutes Apollo with a personified Paupertas. Poverty has of course Callimachean associations, betrayed by the topos of ‘a poet of small means’, according to which Callimachus fashions himself, especially in his Iambs. Besides, the Callimachean lover too is normally poor, cf. pko}tou jemea· w]qer (cf. Ep. 32.1 Pf.)160. Nevertheless Paupertas is crucially associated here with the anti-Callimachean – anti-neoteric invidia161; and so whereas Apollo warns against the genus grande, the Calpurnian poverty necessitates Corydon’s occupation with ovilia (v. 156). In other words, instead of a Callimachean – neoteric Apollo urging towards the genus tenue as opposed to an eschewed genus grande, in the Calpurnian scenery it is poverty of anti-Callimachean – anti-neoteric attitude that makes the poet occupy himself with bucolic space and bucolic poetry162 instead of poetic trends of a 157 Cf. Martin 2003, 82. 158 Cf. also Leach 1973, 77. 159 Cf. also Cesareo 1931, 198 – 9, Verdière 1954, 254, Paladini 1956, 524, Keene 1969, 115, Korzeniewski 1971, 48, Messina 1975, 87 – 8, Friedrich 1976, 153, Davis 1987, 47, Pearce 1990, 103, Vozza 1993, 290 and n.30, Vinchesi 1996, 34 and n.53, Gibson 2004, 6, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 229. 160 Cf. also Karakasis 2005a, 100. 161 Cf. also Wimmel 1970, 294, Vinchesi 1996, 34 and n.56. For poverty and not Apollo as the agent of the poetological command, cf. Hor. Epist. 2.2.51 – 2, where paupertas has a similar function; for a contamination of this latter passage with the opening of Verg. Ecl. 6 at Calp. 4.155 – 6, cf. also Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 159, Vinchesi 1996, 34 and n.55, Simon 2007, 67. 162 For the poetological undertones of ovilia, cf. also Wimmel 1970, 296, Vozza 1993, 290 and n.30, Simon 2007, 67 vs. Paladini 1956, 524 – 5, Bartalucci

The Song Exchange

273

loftier tone. This constitutes a complete inversion of this traditional poetological sign, complementing the poetological semiotic reversal already observed in the previous lines, cf. pp. 270 – 1. Corydon asks Meliboeus to introduce him in the imperial circles (vv. 158 – 9, cf. also Calp. 1.94 where Ornytus similarly remarks: forsitan augustas feret haec Meliboeus ad aures 163) and to function as Vergil’s patron did164, that is having enabled the transformation of Tityrus-Vergil from a pastoral poet to the poet of the Georgics (v. 163: rura prius) as well as of an epic, the Aeneid (v. 163: post cantabimus arma) 165. Significantly, this process of ‘generic transition’ from the genus tenue to the genus grande is conveyed in the Calpurnian instance by means of the verb deducere: e silvis dominam deduxit in urbem (v. 161); deducere is the verb that forms the participle deductum qualifying the genus tenue (cf. Verg. Ecl. 6.5: deductum dicere carmen), and so a movement towards the genus grande is described by means of a verb suggesting the very opposite ‘generic development’. 1976, 111 and n.25, Davis 1987, 47, Gibson 2004, 6; see also Friedrich 1976, 184 and n.48, Schröder 1991, 211. Cf. also ovile in v. 162 describing Vergil’s pastoral poetry as a foil to his Georgics and the Aeneid. See also v. 11: ovile Menalcae, where the syntagm suggests the pastoral subject matter of bucolics, as opposed to poetry of higher aspirations dealing with the divinities of the mighty city, Rome. It is therefore unclear why in this distinct poetological setting evoking programmatic texts, ovilia should have only a literal meaning. My reading of the line, however, differs from Leach 1973, 76 who sees poverty as ‘spur[ring] the poet’s longings for communication with the great world’ against ‘pastoral purity’. For the paupertas motif in the Neronian age as well as for Corydon’s / Calpurnius’ small means, cf. especially Gagliardi 1984, 9 – 10, Vozza 1993, 305 and n.76; see also Beato 1995, 617 – 27, Simon 2007, 66 – 8. 163 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 175, Vozza 1993, 287. 164 Probably Maecenas, cf. Cesareo 1931, 200, Verdière 1954, 255, Wimmel 1970, 296, Pearce 1970, 337, Messina 1975, 88, Friedrich 1976, 10, 152, Sullivan 1985, 56, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 159, Pearce 1990, 104, Schröder 1991, 213, Amat 1991, 44 and n.12, Vozza 1993, 287, Vinchesi 1996, 31 – 2 and n.48, 2002, 149, Gibson 2004, 6, Monella 2009, 75 and n.23, vs. Asinius Pollio, cf. Hubaux 1930, 184, Korzeniewski 1971, 102. Cf. also Cizek 1972, 372, Friedrich 1976, 184 and n.47, Küppers 1989, 40 – 1 and n.39, Schubert 1998, 72 – 4. 165 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 255, Keene 1969, 115, Korzeniewski 1971, 102, Casaceli 1982, 86 – 7, Küppers 1989, 39 – 40, Mackie 1989, 10, Pearce 1990, 104, Schröder 1991, 22, 214 – 6, Amat 1991, 44 and n.112, Vozza 1993, 289 – 90, Beato 1995, 622, Hubbard 1998, 174, Esposito 1996, 27 – 8, Fey-Wickert 2002, 12 and n.12, Byrne 2004, 255, 257, Gibson 2004, 6 – 7, Simon 2007, 74 – 5, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 230.

274

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

Within the above poetological setting of inversed traditional pastoral motifs and catchwords, Amyntas’ offering to the deified Caesar in v. 166: tenerum…headum may also be read as further establishing this inversion of poetological symbolism: the tender kid as a ritual offering to a political god may derive again from Verg. Ecl. 1.8166, where Tityrus offers to his deified iuvenis167 tener nostris ab ovilibus…agnus, but it may also possess further poetological meaning within a passage redolent with issues of poetics. As already observed elsewhere (cf. above, p. 272), in the prologue to Callimachus’ Aetia (1.22 – 4 Pf.) Apollo, the inspiring god of Callimachean poetics, makes a clear distinction between the slender character of Callimachus’ Muse (tµm LoOsam d’ ¡cah³ keptak]gm) and a fattened animal offer (t¹ l³m h}or ftti p\wistom, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 6.4 – 5, where a similar opposition is developed between a pinguis…ovis and a deductum…carmen168). Calpurnius thus reverses the Callimachean ‘slender’ poetic tradition by changing the sacrificial animal from a fattened to a soft and delicate one. The eclogue closes with the well-known Vergilian motif of the return to everyday pastoral menial tasks (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 2.66 – 7, 70 – 2, 3.111, 9.66, 10.77 as well as Calp. 2.93 – 4, 96 – 7169), as Meliboeus asks the two herdsmen to bring their sheep by the river (v. 168: nunc ad flumen oves deducite). The shadow motif in the last line (v. 169: iam sol contractas pedibus magis admovet umbras) has its Vergilian intertexts, namely Ecl. 1.83170 and 2.67; but in both these instances the motif is associated with the coming of the evening, i. e., a further Vergilian closure motif, occasionally linked to the above mentioned return to everyday pastoral activities. Despite the initial pastoral Vergilian impression, this sense of a return to the typical / traditional bucolic order is put again in question, 166 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 217, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 230; for the image of Calpurnius’ deus associated with the deified iuvenis of Verg. Ecl. 1, cf. also Langholf 1990, 359 – 61. 167 For an allegory of Octavian, cf. especially Du Quesnay 1981, 35, 40 – 4, 133 – 4. 168 Cf. also Ross 1975, 26 – 7. 169 Cf. also Schröder 1991, 218. Hubbard 1998, 174 sees in Meliboeus’ deducite as well as in the lowering of position implied meta-linguistic signs suggesting the genus tenue; cf. also Simon 2007, 76: ‘deducite weist auf das vergilische Vorbild’, i. e., Verg. Ecl. 6.3 – 5. These remarks of Meliboeus’ have also been read in the relevant bibliography as the latter’s advice against the urban aspirations of Corydon, cf. also Verdière 1966, 165, Schröder 1991, 219. 170 For an association of this closure with the ending of the first Vergilian eclogue, cf. also Cesareo 1931, 201, Balzert 1971, 29, Simon 2007, 76; yet, see also Messina 1975, 88, Novelli 1980, 79.

Diction and ‘Generic Novelty’

275

as, instead of the arrival of evening, the short shadow suggests noontide171, i. e., usually a time for starting to sing172, cf. Verg. Ecl. 2.7 – 13, rather than to bring a song exchange to its end. Moreover, this ‘alienation’ from the expected ‘pastoral norm’ is also suggested by the wording of the phrase, the combination contractas (contrahere)…umbras (v. 169) originating in Ovid173. The reversal of Vergilian pastoral order is thus further complemented with a wording not having the sanction of pastoral but significantly coming instead from Ovid, the poet who functions as the model Corydon appears as surpassing (vv. 147 ff.) in preference to his default generic pastoral predecessor, Vergil.

Diction and ‘Generic Novelty’ As previously remarked, Meliboeus’ diction exhibits a predilection for post-classical usages that can be read as a further – linguistic – sign of his novel ‘generic orientation’ and of the post-classical development of the genre174. Apart from the transitive usage of adstrepere in v. 2, in Meliboeus’ diction one comes across the following post-classical linguistic features as well: in vv. 19 – 20: iam puerum calamos et odorae vincula cerae / iungere non cohibes, the construction of cohibere with the a.c.i. (cf. also Plin. Nat. 20.147, Dict. Cret. 3.4) 175 ; the transitive usage of remurmuro in vv. 27 – 8: mea carmina…ventosa remurmurat echo (cf. also Fr. 171 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 255, Keene 1969, 116, Korzeniewski 1971, 102, Messina 1975, 88, Ahl 1984, 68, Schröder 1991, 218 – 20, Amat 1995, 80, Hubbard 1998, 174, Gibson 2004, 7 – 8. 172 Cf. also Keene 1969, 39, Leach 1975, 208. 173 Gagliardi 1984, 62 and n.45 reads the end of the eclogue as a ‘tecnica combinatoria’ by means of which Calpurnius brings forward his two main models, namely Vergil and Ovid. See also Ov. Ars 3.723, Met. 3.144, Korzeniewski 1971, 49, Schröder 1991, 220, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 231. 174 It could also be counter-argued that post-classical diction may easily be an indication of date and not a sign of ‘generic deviation’. However, in this case one might expect an even distribution of such linguistic features in the narrative of a specific eclogue as well as in the speech of the various bucolic figures involved; thus the uneven spread of the phenomena in both Calp. 2 and 4 should not be read as accidental. This asymmetrical distribution is to be otherwise justified and thus ‘generic novelty’ may account for the allocation of the linguistic features in question. 175 Cf. Mahr 1964, 135, Merone 1967, 18, Novelli 1980, 45, Gagliardi 1984, 71, Armstrong 1986, 124, Schröder 1991, 89, Horsfall 1997, 185, 189.

276

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

Ep. ad Am. 2.7.1 p. 192 N) 176, possibly the use of fragilis instead of fractus of the weakness of a tone (v. 74), which first appears here and later reemerges in Fulg. Myth. praef. p. 7.1, 12.21 Helm177, and finally in v. 168: iam fremit aestas, the use of fremere with reference to the heat (de rebus fervidis –ThLL VI 1, 1285, 64 – 7, cf. also V. Fl. 7.66 – 7) rather than in its normal usage for hearing effects178. Finally one may mention three hapax usages: in v. 66: praesonuisse chelyn, the transitive use of praesonare in the sense of ‘play better than’ instead of its classical meaning of ‘sound before / earlier than’ (cf. Ov. Am. 3.13.11) is a usage unique in Calpurnius179, and so is respirare in the sense of resonare 180 in v. 74: tinnula tam fragili respiret fistula buxo as well as canales with the meaning of fistula pastoralis in vv. 76 – 7: canales exprime 181. The list may be extended with a further linguistic feature that, although not absent from classical speech, seems to characterise post-classical Latin as far as its productivity is concerned: the use of praeter instead of praeterquam in the sense of nisi after a preceding negative word, vv. 27 – 8: certe mea carmina nemo / praeter ab his scopulis ventosa remurmurat echo. This usage belongs to the colloquial register in classical Latin, but in post-classical Latin it is present in all stylistic registers182 and, as Mahr 1964, 109 claims, it is ‘als eine nachklassische Erscheinung zu werten’. It is probably not a coincidence, therefore, that Corydon, who tries to follow Meliboeus’ ‘generic and stylistic orientation’, also incorporates in his poetic diction several post-classical features of the kind that Meliboeus’ diction favours. Meliboeus’ final positive reaction to Corydon’s performance may thus be due not only to the latter’s adoption of several topics aspiring to a loftier poetic style but to Corydon’s linguistic usage as well. Thus, apart from the transitive construction of resulto in v. 5 (see above, p. 244), one may also point out the following innovative linguis176 Cf. Merone 1967, 13 – 4, 32 – 3, Messina 1975, 108, Novelli 1980, 94, Gagliardi 1984, 75 and n.23, Armstrong 1986, 119, Schröder 1991, 95, Horsfall 1997, 185. 177 Cf. Novelli 1980, 58, Schröder 1991, 133, Horsfall 1997, 191. 178 Cf. Novelli 1980, 60, Schröder 1991, 219 – 20, Horsfall 1997, 181. 179 Cf. Mahr 1964, 124, 160 – 1, Merone 1967, 12 – 3, Messina 1975, 108, 115 and n.18, Novelli 1980, 85, 98, Armstrong 1986, 119 – 20, Schröder 1991, 127, Horsfall 1997, 191, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 213. 180 Cf. Merone 1967, 33 – 4, Messina 1975, 108, Novelli 1980, 31, 98, Armstrong 1986, 123, Schröder 1991, 133, Horsfall 1997, 188. 181 Cf. Merone 1967, 27, Novelli 1980, 31, Armstrong 1986, 120, Schröder 1991, 134 – 5, Horsfall 1997, 186. 182 Cf. Mahr 1964, 108 – 9, Schröder 1991, 94.

Diction and ‘Generic Novelty’

277

tic usages in Corydon’s lines: The unique construction of attribuere with the dative and the infinitive occurs in vv. 53 – 5: nam tibi…dicere…attribuere dei 183, and the use of modulabile as a qualifying adjective of carmen (probably on the basis of the common expression carmen modulari, Tib. 2.1.53 – 4, etc.), also found later in Paul. Nol. Carm. 27.79 and Cassiod. Inst. Div. Litt. 2.5.10, comes in v. 63184. In v. 83 one comes across the formation Atlantiacus in place of the more common Atlanticus / Atlanteus (see Schröder 1991, 147), cf. also Sil. 13.200, Aus. Mos. 144185 and a similar formation, Cureticus for Curetis (cf. Ov. Met. 8.153), in v. 96 (cf. also Sil. 15.308) 186. Exundare in the sense of ‘to abound’of the wool of an animal in v. 104 also occurs in PC authors as well, Colum. (cf. 9.9.1), Luc. (cf. 9.619), Sil. (cf. 3.316), Stat. Th. (cf. 10.535), etc.187, praefocata in v. 115 occurs in a figurative sense for the first time here188, calcator in v. 124 is a further post-classical formation later to reappear in Zeno (e. g. Tract. 2.27.2) and Jerome (In Isa. 16.9 f.) 189. Finally, the use of a future participle in a conditional se183 Cf. Merone 1967, 17, Messina 1975, 108, Armstrong 1986, 124, Schröder 1991, 116 – 7, Horsfall 1997, 187, 189, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 211. 184 Cf. Merone 1967, 22, Novelli 1980, 36, 57 – 8, Armstrong 1986, 119, Schröder 1991, 123 – 4, Horsfall 1997, 191. 185 Cf. Schröder 1991, 147, Horsfall 1997, 181. Armstrong 1986, 120 wrongly believes that the form is ‘unique in Latin’. 186 Cf. Merone 1967, 20, Messina 1975, 109, 111, Novelli 1980, 36, 98, Schröder 1991, 160, Horsfall 1997, 181, Di Lorenzo – Pellegrino 2008, 219. 187 Cf. Horsfall 1997, 179. 188 Cf. Merone 1967, 30 – 1, Messina 1975, 108, Novelli 1980, 85, Armstrong 1986, 123, Schröder 1991, 180, Horsfall 1997, 188. 189 Cf. Mahr 1964, 173 – 4, Armstrong 1986, 121, Schröder 1991, 188 – 9, Horsfall 1997, 183; see also Vinchesi 1992, 155. Post-classical formations appear in Amyntas’ speech as well; but what matters again is the relative accumulation of the features in question in the speech of a specific character and their relative absence from the diction of another, different pastoral figure. In most cases, the post-classical features in Amyntas’ diction, as claimed in the relevant bibliography, are textually doubtful or demonstrably not post-classical; thus in v. 91 fructificare is textually doubtful, cf. also Schröder 1991, 154. The variant fruticare (Haupt, Schenkl, Leo) is a classical formation also found in Cic. Att. 15.4.2. In v. 111 I would read densat odora (Ulitius, Haupt, Shackleton-Bailey, see also Horsfall 1997, 188) instead of the alleged post-classical ablative construction densat odore (vs. Armstrong 1986, 120 – 1); in any case Armstrong’s claim as to the Frontonian character of the ablative construction is only an impression without any solid argumentation, cf. also Schröder 1991, 175. The neuter plural arbuta (cf. Armstrong 1986, 123 ‘rare or late’; see also Horsfall 1997, 189) in v. 109 seems to refer, as in classical Latin, to the tree (cf. also Verg. G. 3.301,

278

The Fourth Calpurnian Eclogue

quence of the unreal in vv. 39 – 40: nisi tu…fuisses ultima visuri 190 is an option which, despite its occasional occurrence in classical Latin, constitutes a further distinct linguistic marker of the post-classical language.

Conclusion The fourth Calpurnian eclogue is obviously about the formation of a ‘generically modified’ Neronian pastoral, as Calpurnius is moving away from ‘traditional’ (Theocritean, Greek post-Theocritan and Vergilian) ‘pastoral’ towards other ‘generic directions’, always in the use of an imperial panegyric. This is achieved mainly by incorporating motifs and stylistic features or wording unknown in previous pastoral, associated instead with other literary genres, often the georgics (e. g. plane trees as the ‘generic marker’ of a georgic locus amoenus in Roman literature, the milking interests of Amyntas, the georgic tasks of a fossor finding a treasure, etc) or the Ovidian corpus (e. g. the qualification of the emperor as aeternus), by handling traditional bucolic markers in an ‘unpastoral’ manner (e. g. the negative depiction of a generic locus amoenus, the motif of the spellbound nature connected in previous pastoral with poetic power, but associated in the Calpurnian eclogue with an appeal to Caesar) or even by choosing topics which have a precedent in the previous pastoral corpus, yet suggesting, even in this latter case, a ‘deviation’ from the ‘pure pastoral norm’ (e. g. the silence motif in Corydon’s case, the legalistic interests in vv. 117 ff.). 4.181. See also Keene 1969, 107, Novelli 1980, 66, Schröder 1991, 172); turbidus in v. 131 (cf. Novelli 1980, 60, Horsfall 1997, 188), although used of sound, appears in its classical meaning ‘in a state of turmoil, confused, disordered’, cf. OLD 4b. As for nullus for nemo in v. 129, it occurs, as Armstrong 1986, 121 himself remarks, even in Plautus. Thus the only post-classical formations that appear in Amyntas’ speech are regerminare in v. 111, also found in Plin. Nat. 16.141, 19.122 (cf. also Novelli 1980, 38, Gagliardi 1984, 69 – 70 and n.1, Armstrong 1986, 121, Schröder 1991, 177, Horsfall 1997, 185 – 6), and surdare in v. 131, found only in Calpurnius (cf. Mahr 1964, 185, Merone 1967, 25, Messina 1975, 108, Novelli 1980, 94, Gagliardi 1984, 71, Armstrong 1986, 121, Schröder 1991, 192 – 3), but this latter case seems to be a plebeian formation (cf. Armstrong 1986, 121), which imparts a colloquial / rustic linguistic colour to Amyntas’ diction when singing of rustic fests. 190 Cf. Mahr 1964, 87: ‘eine ausgesprochen nachklassische Eigentümlichkeit’, Schröder 1991, 105.

Conclusion

279

The present eclogue’s connection with the fourth and the fifth Vergilian eclogues is especially strong (e. g. the aurea aetas imagery, the georgic blooming resulting from the beneficial influence of a deified political figure). These two eclogues also attempted a ‘generic re-evaluation’ of pastoral in the panegyrical direction, thus foreshadowing the similar trend of the Neronian period (with the caveats of n.18 on p. 243). This ‘generic reassessment’ becomes evident in the case of the poetological meta-language of the eclogue as well: traditional generic signs, catchwords and motifs suggesting the genus tenue of the pastoral kind are here transformed and often inversed or express opposite ‘generic sensibilities’ (e. g. the image of Apollo, the inspiring god of the genus tenue, accepting Corydon’s aspirations as to loftier poetic genres). Corydon sacrifices ‘generic purity’ for the sake of the emperor’s encomium: therefore he often employs motifs related to the praise of the emperor (as is for example the association of Jupiter with Apollo, specific effects associated with the appearance of a divine figure, etc.) which repeatedly oppose or even eliminate basic pre-Calpurnian pastoral values or attributes (e. g. the blemished traditional pastoral pantheon, the silence of natural sounds, etc.). Without claiming that evidence of post-Augustan linguistic usage should always be seen as a further sign of ‘unpastoral’ trends, I believe that the ‘generic novelty’ of the present poem is finally mirrored by a certain degree of linguistic innovation, especially in the speech of Meliboeus and Corydon, who adopt several linguistic peculiarities of post-classical Latin.

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue The first Einsiedeln eclogue is one more battleground for the by now familiar singing contest. Two figures bearing names without pastoral precedents, Thamyras and Ladas, the contestants of this !c~m, take as their umpire a further character bearing an ‘unpastoral’ name, Midas1 (v. 1), and engage in pastoral song. They follow the established exchange pattern, but not as a traditional amoebaean boujokiasl|r ; instead, their self-admitted aim is to sing Caesar’s praises (v. 15: Caesareas…dicere laudes). The song-contest is thus framed within a clear panegyric setting, of the kind exemplified by the Calpurnian bucolic tradition and the literature of the Neronian period in general. The poem seems to be incomplete, since Midas’ verdict is lacking2 ; this hinders the interpretation of the poem, as in previous instances, namely the third and the seventh Vergilian eclogue and the second Calpurnian pastoral, the final verdict of the umpire was crucial with respect to the ‘generic outlook’ of the singing performances (cf. chapters 1, 2 and 6, pp. 55 ff., 122 – 4, 235 – 7). In spite of this difficulty, the present chapter will examine the ways in which a tension between traditional pre-Neronian ‘pastoral norm’ and the imperial panegyric setting (as already explored chiefly in Calpurnius’ fourth eclogue) is created in this poem as well. Additionally, the present bucolic also seems to be, at least in part, concerned with issues of ‘generic ambivalence’, and this will be verified on the basis of the formalistic features of the !c~m, its language, style and poetological meta-language. 1 2

Cf. Effe – Binder 1989, 131, Merfeld 1999, 112, 132, Vallat 2006, http://. Cf. Korzeniewski 1966, 353 claiming that a final verdict is lacking, probably because of its anti-Caesarian character (see also similarly Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 168); cf. also Scheda 1969, 7, Verdière 1985, 1890, Pearce 1992, 107. Scholars have tried to reconstruct the outcome of the singing match (cf. e. g. Scheda 1969, 15 – 6 opting for Ladas as the winner, Maciejczyk 1907, 45, Schmid 1953, 89, Bartalucci 1976, 103 favouring Thamyras, whereas Theiler 1956, 577 speaks of a possible draw as in Verg. Ecl. 3.108 – 11 and Calp. 2.99 – 100; see also Scheda 1969, 7 – 8, Merfeld 1999, 136 – 7 and n.6).

The Introductory Setting

281

The Introductory Setting Eins. 1 begins with Thamyras’ appeal to Midas, described as the long awaited umpire of the poetic contest to follow (vv. 1 – 2: te, formose Mida, iam dudum nostra requirunt iurgia). This gesture sets Eins. 1 apart from the rest of the bucolic singing match tradition, where the selection of the umpire usually comes as a choice of the moment, often facilitated by the casual passing by of the person who eventually functions as the referee (cf. Theocr. 5.62 – 71, [Theocr.] 8.25 – 7, Verg. Ecl. 3.50, Calp. 6.28 – 9, 91 – 2); in any case no mention of a person long looked for ever occurs (cf. also Verg. Ecl. 7.1 – 20, Calp. 2.9). Moreover, whereas beauty is often, explicitly or implicitly, an asset of the contesting herdsmen (cf. [Theocr.] 8.3, Verg. Ecl. 7.4, Calp. 2.3 – 4, see also Nemes. 2.163), this quality is here attributed to the referee4. However, as discussed in the case of the fifth Vergilian eclogue (cf. chapter 4, p. 166; see also pp. 75, 86), formosus can also function as a meta-linguistic term suggesting the genus tenue of the Callimachean – neoteric tradition, to which pastoral (at least up to Vergil) also belongs; for example it has been so used for denoting the neoteric qualities of Daphnis as a pastoral singer in Mopsus’ song of the fifth Vergilian pastoral. If so, the term may add to the satirical / comic character of the present poem, if applied to the well-known Midas, i. e., the one who is unable to realise the poetic quality of Apollo, the very god often presented as presiding over the genus tenue: mythical Midas questioned Apollo’s victory over Pan and thus was punished with ass ears (cf. Ov. Met. 11.146 – 93) 5. 3 4

5

Cf. also Merfeld 1999, 112 and n.2. For an association of Midas with Nero (a view shared by Herrmann, Stowasser, Maciejczyk vs. Schmid, Korzeniewski), cf. especially Verdière 1954, 62 – 3, 265, 1966, 173, Bartalucci 1976, 103, 107, 116 and n.59, Amat 1997, 138 – 9; see also Schmid 1953, 88 and n.92, Sullivan 1985, 57, Schubert 1998, 145 – 6, Merfeld 1999, 119 and n.1. In terms of the above bucolic masquerade, Thamyras has also been read as symbolising Calpurnius Siculus with Lucan as Ladas (cf. Herrmann 1930, 435, Verdière 1954, 63, 265, 1966, 173) or vice versa (Maciejczyk), see also Simon 2007, 71 and n.116. For Ladas as the mask of the Eins. author, cf. Scheda 1967a, 56; in any case such allegorical readings (the identification of all pastoral figures with contemporary individuals) seem, as often in post-Vergilian pastoral, quite far-fetched and certainly are beyond the methodological framework and the scope of the present study. For the rather compelling view that the name Midas here suggests the mythical figure of the Ovidian narrative, cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 111, Schubert 1998, 140 – 1, who convincingly reads both formosus and vacuam aurem as ironic

282

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

Midas’ donkey figure, further emphasising the ‘comic outlook’ of the passage, is not without significance in this context: the ass is a poetological animal, symbolising anti-Callimachean poetics as expressed in the Aetia prologue, where in vv. 29 – 30 the sweet voice of the cicada suggesting Callimachean slenderness is opposed to the image of a braying ass. A figure with anti-Callimachean associations is thus about to play the role of the umpire in a pastoral amoebaean boujokiasl|r, traditionally extolling, at least up to the Neronian period, Callimachean poetic trends of the keptak]g Muse. Formosus is not the only meta-linguistic catchword that could be read in its opposition to the anti-neoteric quality of the mythical Midas, or as a foil to the anti-neoteric leaning towards the genus grande exhibited by both Ladas and Thamyras in their praise of the emperor. Although the syntagm vacua auris occurs elsewhere in Roman literature (cf. Lucr. 1.50, Hor. Epist. 1.16.26, Ov. Met. 12.56, Calp. 4.47 – 8, V. Max. 2.4.4, 5.8.36) in the sense of ‘ear ready to listen’ (cf. OLD vacuus 11c), vacuus also appears in the neoteric meta-linguistic jargon, also suggesting poetry of Callimachean – neoteric sensibilities7. In this sense, the mythical Midas, a person of no great poetic perspicacity, is asked to lend a ‘leisured’ / ‘slender’ ear to the ‘non-slender’ poetic output of the two contestants, v. 2: da vacuam pueris certantibus aurem. The term significantly appears in its combination with a further neoteric catchword of the genus tenue, namely ludere, lusus, as in Hor. Carm. 1.32.1 – 2: si quid vacui sub umbra lusimus tecum; cf. v. 4, where Midas, as un umpire, asks for (neoteric) skill, imponite lusibus artem. However, the surrounding formulation of Midas’ request for a bucolic singing match testifies to a certain ‘alienation’ from the traditional ‘pastoral code’: the image of a remote nemus in vv. 3 – 4, a staple location for poetic inspiration8, suggests the image of a distant, isolated ‘pastoral space’, which contrasts with the idea of a close association between man and the bucolic world he inhabits; this sense of detachment is also to be found in the fourth Calpurnian eclogue, with the same implications of

6 7 8

when referring to somebody equipped with donkey ears. Korzeniewski 1966, 350 – 1 points out several linguistic similarities between Eins. 1 and Ov. Met. 11.146 ff., further backing up a reading of Midas as an allegory of the mythical figure. Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 76. For vacuus as a neoteric term see e. g. Hor. Carm. 1.6.17 ff., Epist. 1.7.44 – 5, Ov. Am. 1.1.26, Rem. 752, Met. 1.520, Prop. 1.10.30. Cf. Hunter 2006, 7 – 16.

The Introductory Setting

283

‘generic alienation’ (cf. the previous chapter, p. 251). Besides Midas’ expression at the beginning of v. 3, haud moror, instead of the pastoral, i. e., Calpurnian alternative nec mora (Calp. 2.27, 4.101, 5.29), has clear epic intertexts (Verg. A. 3.548, 5.749, 6.177, 7.156, 11.713, cf. also the georgic haud mora in Verg. G. 4.5489) and may further underline a stylistic sense of ‘generic alteration’ towards the genus grande. This sense of ‘generic modification and diversification’ is further complemented here by the elimination of a key-bucolic motif of the pre-Neronian pastoral poetic tradition: Midas, despite being the arbiter of a bucolic match, seems to forget a basic rule of the agonistic boujokiasl¹r (as opposed to a friendly song exchange), namely the setting of prizes, and urges the contestants to start off the song exchange without delay, vv. 3 – 410. Thus one of the contestants, Thamyras, is obliged to call him back to pastoral order, insisting on the importance of the stakes, v. 5: praemia si cessant, artis fiducia muta est. The traditional ‘pastoral facade / norm’ is thus ‘put at risk’ by ‘unpastoral’ flaws, a technique well-known from Calpurnian pastoral. In a similar vein, the descriptive term that Thamyras uses for the pastoral prize is praemium (v. 5) and not pignus, the term common in Vergil and Calpurnius (cf. Verg. Ecl. 3.31: tu dic, mecum quo pignore certes, Calp. 2.6 – 7: contendere cantu pignoribus parant, and see also [Theocr.] 8.11 – 2: %ehkom). Praemium in the sense of ‘prize’, ‘reward’11 is absent from Vergilian pastoral, in opposition to its occurrence in Vergilian didactic and epic poetry (cf. G. 3.49, A. 4.33), but appears once in Calpurnian pastoral, in 7.13 – 4: sit licet invictus Stimicon et praemia dives auferat. Such a variation, though, may well be the result of a latecomer’s attempt to avoid simple repetition; nonetheless, in the case of praemium, the substitution may produce additional ‘generic meaning’, for the term, within Calpurnian bucolics, is associated with the well-established ‘generic dichotomy’ ‘urbs and its non-bucolic aspirations vs. pastoral rus’. Thus Calp. 7.13 – 4 is significantly uttered by Corydon, when, charmed by the allures of the city, he declares himself ready to abandon the ‘green cabinet’ and its values. In an expression of indifference towards standard habits of every day bucolic life, he is presented as disdaining Stimicon’s continuing superiority in a distinct pastoral activity, the agonistic boujokiasl|r. This term (praemium), first 9 For the references, cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 76. 10 Cf. Scheda 1969, 9 – 10, Effe – Binder 1989, 131, Schubert 1998, 141, see also p. 144, Merfeld 1999, 113. 11 Cf. Schubert 1998, 146 and n.35; see also Korzeniewski 1966, 344 and n.4.

284

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

used by a ‘pastoral renegade’, is here employed by Thamyras in order to bring Midas back to pastoral order; the intertextual wording however betrays the ‘pastoral clumsiness’ of the particular linguistic option. Poetological concerns are expressed also in the following lines, where the two singers agree on the prizes of the singing match: following the conventional ‘pastoral norm’, according to which two stakes are proposed, Ladas suggests either a he goat with a forehead marked with a white spot (cf. also Calp. 6.4512) or a levis…fistula (vv. 7 – 9), a gift of the pastoral god Faunus; this disjunction is in the line of the well-known ‘pastoral dichotomy’ between a materialistic and a more artistic stake13, which in a way implies the quality of pastoral poetic art. This occurs for example in the eighth pseudotheocritean idyll, where a calf and a lamb are rejected as stakes, in favour of pastoral flutes (vv. 13 ff., s}qicn, vv. 18, 21, the pastoral musical instrument par excellence also suggesting pastoral poetry as a genre), the making of which is described in detail (vv. 18 – 24). Similarly, in the third Vergilian eclogue, in response to Damoetas’ wagering of a cow, Menalcas stakes two artistic beech cups suggesting the quality of the pastoral genre, vv. 29 ff. (cf. chapter 2, pp. 88 – 95). In the present eclogue, the materialistic goat is turned down in favour of a pipe (fistula, v. 12) crucially described as levis (v. 8), i. e., by means of the well-known catchword of Callimachean undertones, which may suggest the neoteric character of the awaited pastoral song. A clear parallel is Verg. Ecl. 5.2, where a similar qualification (tu calamos inflare levis) also suggests the Callimachean quality of the pastoral song to follow, and cf. also Verg. Ecl. 1.2, where the neoteric outlook of Tityrus’ pastoral song is implied by a similar qualification (tenuis) applied to the pastoral flute, silvestrem tenui musam meditaris avena14, see also Calp. 2.31: levis…fistula. The poetological reading of the passage is further backed up by the emphasis given to the artistic manufacture of the pipe (‘set round with moveable knobs’15, v. 8: mobilibus circumdata bullis), since the artistic crafting of a pastoral object is 12 Cf. Verdière 1954, 265. For this sixth Calpurnian eclogue as a possible model for the Eins. passage in question, cf. also Scheda 1969, 51 – 3 further claiming a second model, namely Verg. Ecl. 3, Amat 1997, 213, Merfeld 1999, 113 and n.1. 13 See also Korzeniewski 1966, 345, Schubert 1998, 146, Merfeld 1999, 115 and n.2. 14 Cf. also Pearce 1992, 100 – 1. 15 As translated by Duff and Duff 1934, 325. For a review of the various interpretations of the syntagm, cf. especially Amat 1997, 213.

The Introductory Setting

285

often meta-poetically read as alluding to the artistic quality of the pastoral genre it represents16. The handing over of the pipe by a pastoral god, in this case Faunus, in a setting of a pastoral poetic initiation / succession (cf. also Theocr. 5.8, [Moschus] 3.95 – 7, Verg. Ecl. 2.36 – 8, 5.48, 6.69 – 71, Calp. 2.28, 4.59 – 63, Nemes. 2.82 – 4)17 further enhances the poetological reading of the passage. But for all its traditional ‘pastoral correctness’ and meta-linguistic adhesion to the genus tenue of the ‘green tradition’, long-established pastoral patterns seem to be ‘jeopardised’ in the narrative segment under question: Thamyras chooses the pastoral pipe (v. 12: fistula) 18, but the way in which he expresses his choice suggests an alteration to the earlier ‘pastoral norm’. Instead of staking his own pledges, he anticipates his final victory and thus presents himself as the victorious singer, who will take the flute19 from the defeated Ladas (v. 12: fistula damnato iam nunc pro pignore dempta). The style of his declaration is legalistic20 and quite alien to pastoral stylistic habits, often appearing in contexts where a ‘pastoral dislocation’ operates (cf. especially chapter 5, pp. 186 – 7; see also pp. 123, 133 – 5, 148 – 9, 193 and n.39, 266 – 7). This fistula, frequently symbolising the pastoral genre, is crucially described as the gift of the silvicola Faunus (v. 9), i. e., Faunus as the tenant of the woods; but this compound adjective in -cola has mainly a good genus grande, primarily epic, pedigree, appearing in Naevius’ Punica (21.1), in Accius’ trag. 237, in the Aeneid (10.551) and in post–Vergilian epic poetry (Stat. Th. 5.582, see also Luc. fr.1,6. p. 329 Hosius21). Thus the flute is the gift of a pastoral god, in a distinct pastoral gesture of poetic succession, but is described by means of epic stylistic markers. Similarly, the syntagm praeda mea est with which Thamyras expresses his anticipation of victory (v. 15: praeda mea est, quia Caesareas me dicere laudes) is a further stylistic indication of ‘alternative generic preferences’. Spoils have nothing to do with pastoral values, evoking instead the ‘military 16 Cf. also the relevant remarks in chapter 2 with reference to the artistic representation of the jiss}biom in the first Theocritean idyll and of the beech cups of the third Vergilian eclogue, pp. 88 ff. 17 Cf. also Pearce 1992, 101. 18 Cf. Korzeniewski 1964, 344 – 5, Schubert 1998, 142, Merfeld 1999, 113. 19 Cf. also Theiler 1956, 571, Korzeniewski 1966, 346 – 7, Scheda 1969, 11, Schubert 1998, 142, Merfeld 1999, 115. 20 For the legal colouring of the expression damnato…dempta, cf. Verdière 1954, 265, Amat 1997, 214. 21 Cf. Korzeniewski 1971, 112.

286

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

code’ and its poetic genres; what is more, the expression occurs in the dialogue parts of Roman comedy as well, cf. Plaut. Cas. 113, Poen. 66022, Pseud. 1124. This ‘comic leaning’ may thus be seen as reinforcing the ironic reading propounded mainly by Korzeniewski 1966, 344 – 53, 1971, 110 – 1, who reads this song exchange chiefly as an ironic rendering of the emperor’s praise23. The use of palma in v. 16: huic semper debetur palma labori, in order to denote pastoral victory24, seems to function as a further ‘generically diversifying’ touch: palma in this sense (i. e., related to victory) has no pastoral parallels, despite its frequent appearance in other literary genres (cf. Plaut. Amph. 69, Poen. 37, Ter. Phorm. 17, Verg. A. 5.70, Hor. Carm. 1.1.5, etc.). The victorious singer in Roman pastoral does not receive a palma, nor is his victory so described; the winner of the singing match usually receives as a prize the stakes agreed beforehand, as has often been remarked, cf. p. 52. Besides, whereas pastoral figures usually perform singing at the instigation of an inspiring (political or not) deity (cf. e. g. Verg. Ecl. 3, Calp. 2, 4), Thamyras, once again against the awaited ‘pastoral norm’, ventures on pastoral panegyric at the advice of his own mens 25 (vv. 15 – 6). Additionally, the winner, praised for 22 For these references, cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 77. 23 Vs. Küppers 1985, 350 and n.29. Korzeniewski bases his reading mainly on the mythological names of the characters; thus he reads Midas as the mythic character unable to discern Apollo’s superiority over Pan and thus punished with the ears of an ass (see also above p. 281, Pearce 1992, 99), Ladas as the famous athlete who has nothing to do with pastoral, and finally Thamyras as the mythic figure punished with the loss of both his sight and his art for having challenged the Muses; see also Amat 1997, 139. Cf. also Bartalucci 1976, 103 – 7, Sullivan 1985, 57, Hubbard 1998, 142. What is more, Korzeniewski 1974, 921 – 5 isolates several features of the sibylline style in Eins. 1, which further back up (cf. especially p. 923) his ironic reading of the poem; see also Römer 1994, 100, Amat 1998, 194 – 6, 199. Schubert 1998, 140, 156 – 8, going one step further, reads the poem as a satire of the bucolic panegyric production of the Neronian age as a whole. Whereas Korzeniewski 1966, 1971 bases his ironic reading of the poem mainly on the mythical background of the pastoral figures involved, Merfeld 1999, 135 claims that the choice of the Eins. author for these mythical characters, on the contrary, reinforces the panegyric colouring of the eclogue; although having doubted the excellence of Apollo and the Muses, Midas and Thamyras are here presented as readily acknowledging Nero’s artistic superiority: Nero is too good an artist to have to face any kind of criticism. 24 For a possible reference here to the Neronia contests, cf. Amat 1998, 195. 25 Cf. Korzeniewski 1966, 346 – 7, Scheda 1969, 11 – 2, Schubert 1998, 142, Merfeld 1999, 114, 116.

The Introductory Setting

287

his pastoral performance, is not interested in achieving gloria, as suggested by Ladas’ prompting in v. 14: iudicis e gremio victoris gloria surgat; gloria is not a conventional pastoral value, does not appear in Vergilian pastoral, and is rather related to the ‘epic code’ (cf. also chapter 6, pp. 220 – 1). An inversion of the initiation motif, similarly to the fourth Calpurnian pastoral, occurs in vv. 17 – 8: Cynthius is here presented in his traditional role of an inspiring divinity, in the sense that he is depicted as giving poetological advice to one of the singers, Ladas. First of all, Ladas is depicted as famous thanks to his lyre-playing, although it is the flute (avena, fistula, calami) rather than the lyre that belongs to the ‘pastoral code’26 ; nevertheless, Apollo bides Ladas to change his lyre-tunes (v. 18: laudatamque chelyn iussit variare canendo). However, this alteration does not go in the direction of ‘pastoral purity / tradition’, as will be evidenced later by the ‘epic outlook’ or the ‘unpastoral’ in any case colouring of the competing songs to follow27. This ‘generic tendency’ is anticipated here by the chiefly epic undertones of the wording used for describing the pastoral god traditionally presiding over the genus tenue: Apollo is depicted sidereo…ore (v. 17), i. e., by means of a syntagm where the adjective has the meaning of ‘having a star-like brightness or beauty’ (cf. OLD 2), thus alluding to similar descriptions of chiefly genus grande intertexts, cf. Verg. A. 12.167, Sen. Oed. 40928. This rather epi26 For the ‘unpastoral’ character of the lyre, cf. also Korzeniewski 1966, 345. 27 Vs. Scheda 1967a, 54 – 5, 1969, 49, Verdière 1985, 1893, Schubert 1998, 143, Merfeld 1999, 117 – 8, who read chelys as symbolising epic poetry; yet chelys denotes the lyre (cf. also Pearce 1992, 102, Amat 1997, 214) and thus cannot be exclusively related to epic poetry. For a refutation of chelys as an epic symbol in the Calpurnian pastoral, cf. also Schröder 1991, 127 – 8. As to variare denoting a change between lyre-playing and song, cf. Schubert 1998, 143 and n.24. Pearce 1992, 102 translates v. 18 as follows: ‘Cynthius ordered (me) to vary (his) praised lyre with (my) singing’, Amat 1997, 214 – 5 reads the verb variare as equivalent to ‘faire des variations mélodiques d’ accompagnement’, Crusius 1895, 381 gives the syntagm (chelyn…variare canendo) the meaning variis carminibus celebrare, and Schubert 1998, 143 and n.24, rather unconvincingly again, reads canendo, i. e., a term having a wide poetological semantic load, as suggesting bucolic panegyric; see also Merfeld 1999, 117: ‘canere im Sinne von ‘singen bukolischer Lieder’’, Lana 1998, 828: ‘Lada, poeta lirico, è indotto da Apollo a farsi poeta bucolico’. For Korzeniewski 1966, 345 and n.3 chelyn variare canendo and lyra canere are of the same meaning. 28 Cf. also V. Fl. 4.190, 4.331, 8.26, Stat. Ach. 1.809, Th. 5.613, Korzeniewski 1971, 77. For ore in the sense of Nero’s vox caelestis, as Apollo is commonly equated with the emperor, cf. Verdière 1954, 265, 1966, 173, 1985, 1893, Bardon 1972, 11, Cupaiuolo 1973, 194, Amat 1997, 214, Lana 1998, 828; yet the

288

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

cising phrasing functions as a foil to the pastoral stylistic formulation of the incipit in Ladas’ lines, namely the use of et at the beginning of a line (v. 17: et mi), which seems to be equivalent to the Greek ja· in similar singing match contexts29. Midas continues by deciding the order of appearance of the singers; the wording he uses, vv. 20 – 1: incipe, Lada, tu prior; alternus Thamyras, has clear pastoral intertexts, cf. [Theocr.] 8.30 – 2, 61, 9.1 – 2, Verg. Ecl. 3.58 – 9, 5.10, 7.18 – 20, Calp. 2.25 – 7, 4.79 – 8130, 6.2, 74, cf. also Nemes. 4.13. The expression alternus leads one to expect alternate strophic units between the two contestants31, but this does not take place here, once again against the expected pastoral standards: instead what follows is two self-contained performances as known from Theocr. 6, 7, [Theocr.] 9, Verg. Ecl. 5, 8 and Nemes. 2. What is more, the wish for the inspiring help of Cynthius in all probability (v. 20: sic vos cantantes deus adiuvet!) rather than of the pastoral Nymphs, i. e., the default generic inspiring deities of the bucolic genre, as well as the epic intertext of Midas’ final line, v. 21: imponet honorem, cf. also Verg. A. 1.4932, may also be read as ‘diversifying’ once more the finish of an otherwise familiar pastoral setting.

Ladas’ Song Ladas begins with a combined invocation to Jupiter and Apollo33 : Zeus, not closely associated with the Theocritean and the Vergilian pastoral pantheon (cf. chapter 2, cf. pp. 111 – 2; see also pp. 259 – 60), is here presented in his traditional, yet also ‘unpastoral’, function as the eternal

29 30 31 32 33

view adopted here, cf. also Theiler 1956, 571 – 2, is that os is used in the sense of ‘face’. Cf. Merkelbach 1956, 111, Scheda 1969, 12 and n.1, Merfeld 1999, 117 and n.1. For the Calpurnian intertext, cf. also Verdière 1954, 212, Amat 1997, 157 and n.16. See also Scheda 1969, 50 – 1 for a combination of the first two Vergilian models with the one from the fourth Calpurnian eclogue. Cf. Scheda 1969, 12, 50. Cf. Korzeniewski 1971, 77, 112, Merfeld 1999, 118 – 9 and n.6. Cf. also Korzeniewski 1966, 351, Scheda 1966, 381 – 2, 1969, 17, Effe – Binder 1989, 132, Schubert 1998, 147, Merfeld 1999, 119 – 20 vs. Duff and Duff 1934, 327 who read in Ladas’ lyrics a reference to Apollo only; for the syntactical problems of the passage, causing the indeterminacy of the address, see also Schubert 1998, 147 and n.38.

Ladas’ Song

289

ruler of the sky (v. 22: maxime divorum caelique aeterna potestas 34); the wording of the formulation, which has its parallel in Verg. A. 10.18: o pater, o hominum rerumque aeterna potestas 35, also testifies to the rather ‘epic propensities’ of the passage. Apollo, on the other hand, although belonging to the traditional pastoral pantheon, is not yet presented as nomios; he is instead praised for his ability (unrelated to pre-Calpurnian pastoral values) for setting philosophical learning to the music of the lyre, v. 24: citharae modulis primordia iungere mundi 36. As far as pastoral intertexts are concerned, such a combined invocation to Jupiter and Apollo also suggests ‘generic ambivalence’, as it harks back to Verg. Ecl. 337 and Calp. 4 (in this latter case the association of Nero with both Zeus and Phoebus, cf. also vv. 27 – 8 with Calp. 4.82 – 96, 142 – 438), that is pastoral poems dealing with the ‘generic boundaries’ of pastoral and their ‘transcendence’. This movement towards the epic genre continues with the following image of the poet asking for inspiration similar to that of the Pythian or Sibyllan prophetess, vv. 25 ff.39, an objective recalling similar notions expressed in Lucan’s epic intertext, namely 5.88 – 99 (cf. also Lucr. 1.739, V. Fl. 1.5 – 6), as well the Vergilian epic (Verg. A. 6) 40. 34 Cf. also the previous chapter and the relevant evidence for the ‘unpastoral’ character of the motif given there, p. 262. 35 Cf. Korzeniewski 1971, 77. 36 On the basis of the primordia…mundi syntagm Amat 1997, 158 and n.18 (cf. also p. 147) also sees a movement away from pastoral towards the didactic epic in the line of Lucretius (cf. e. g. Lucr. 1.712). Alternatively for the Stoic (and also ‘unpastoral’) image of Apollo as a lyre-player, securing by means of his music cosmic harmony, cf. Schmid 1953, 92 – 3; see also Theiler 1956, 574. For a Stoic Apollo as dgliouqc¹r toO j|slou here, cf. also Scheda 1965, 304 – 5, 1966, 383, 1969, 17 – 8, Korzeniewski 1971, 112. Merdeld 1999, 120 – 1 (rather unconvincingly) associates the Eins. passage with Verg. Ecl. 6.82 – 4. 37 Cf. also Theiler 1956, 577, Hubbard 1998, 141, Merfeld 1999, 120. 38 Cf. Korzeniewski 1971, 112, Hubbard 1998, 141 pointing out a similar conjunction in Luc. 1.45 – 52, Merfeld 1999, 120. 39 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 266, Korzeniewski 1966, 345 and n.3, 1974, 921 – 5, Bartalucci 1976, 116 and n.60, Effe – Binder 1989, 132, Pearce 1992, 103, Amat 1997, 215, Schubert 1998, 147, Merfeld 1999, 122 and n.2 vs. Scheda 1969, 21. 40 Cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 327, Verdière 1985, 1895 (– Luc. 5.176 – 82), Korzeniewski 1971, 112. Theiler 1956, 573 points out several similarities with Verg. A. 6, namely ore coacto (v. 25 – Verg. A. 6.79 – 80, see also Merfeld 1999, 122 and n.2), virgo (v. 25 – Verg. A. 6.104), the combination furit et canit (v. 25 –

290

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

Ladas thus may be seen as functioning like the epic prophetesses41 about to disclose the presence of a god; but unlike diviners, Ladas is not allowed to divulge the encounter with a god42, when lacking a divine permission43. Hence he makes use of the fas sit prayer formula in v. 26: fas mihi sit vidisse deos, fas prodere mundo, a line that thematically and linguistically evokes a further epic intertext, namely Verg. A. 6.264 – 744. A similar syntagm (v. 266 – 7: sit mihi fas audita loqui, sit numine vestro / pandere res alta terra et caligine mersas) is thus uttered by the epic narrator when asking for the permission of the underworld deities to recount Aeneas’ descent. The epic colouring does not stop here: in the following lines (vv. 27 – 9) the emperor, associated again with both Jupiter (v. 27: caeli mens) and Apollo (v. 27: solis imago) 45, is presented as producing a thunder-like noise, v. 29: intonuitque manu 46. The verb intonare in this sense occurs, before Eins. 1, in epic instances only, cf. Verg. A. 9.709; see also Ilias L. 952, (cf. OLD 2 – ‘to make a noise like thun-

41 42 43 44 45

46

Verg. A. 6.99 – 100), fas mihi sit (v. 26 – Verg. A. 6.266, cf. also 2.157, Luc. 1.598, 631 – 2, 10.194 – 5). For a ‘window reference’ here back to Vergil’s Sibylla, A. 6.45 – 51, 77 – 82, through the medium of Luc. 5.169 – 80, 190 – 5, cf. Amat 1997, 135 and n.24, see also p. 215. This last interpretation as well as the epic linguistic parallels pointed out mainly by Theiler further increase the epic colouring of the passage. Cf. Merfeld 1999, 121. Cf. Merfeld 1999, 123. Cf. Scheda 1969, 21. Cf. Bücheler 1871, 236, Theiler 1956, 573, Korzeniewski 1971, 78, Merfeld 1999, 121 – 2. See also Schmid 1953, 85, Scheda 1969, 20. For an allusion to these two deities here, see also Verdière 1954, 213, Scheda 1969, 20 – 1, Amat 1997, 215, Schubert 1998, 148; see also Luc. 5.95. For Ladas’ reference to Nero as Jupiter–Apollo in vv. 27 – 9 as well, cf. also Theiler 1956, 573 – 4, Bartalucci 1976, 101 – 2, Verdière 1985, 1896, Merfeld 1999, 123 – 6. For a possible association of both caeli mens and solis imago with sun / the solar cult (and thus with Nero), cf. also Amat 1997, 215; see also Schmid 1953, 91, Merfeld 1999, 126. Schubert 1998, 148 sees here ‘das Erlebnis eines musikalischen Auftritts Neros als Kitharspieler’; see also Scheda 1966, 384. The image of an Apollo-lyre player is also suggested by v. 28: dignus utroque…stet ostro clarus et auro. Apollo as a golden lyre-player is crucially presented as wearing a purple garment, cf. Scheda 1969, 21 – 2, Merfeld 1999, 124 and n.5; yet a combination of purple with gold is also an imperial insignia, cf. Verg. A. 4.134: ostroque insignis et auro, Verdière 1954, 213, Amat 1997, 215, Merfeld 1999, 124. Thus here one may also see a combined image, that of the emperor–Apollo (= Nero); cf. also Scheda 1969, 21, Korzeniewski 1971, 112, Pearce 1992, 104, Amat 1998, 195, 198, La Bua 1999, 297.

Ladas’ Song

291

der’); what is more, epic imagery is also created through the depiction of the emperor as wielding the thunderbolt, modeled on similar portrayals of Zeus47, common in the literature of the period. This depiction however may also hark back to the poetological picture of the thundering epic Jupiter (cf. Call. Aet. 1.20 Pf., Ov. Am. 2.1.15, see also previous chapter, p. 262), symbolising epic poetry of the genus grande in contrast to the slender character of Callimachean – neoteric poetry. Thus the emperor is praised within a bucolic setting by means of an image suggesting non-Callimachean epic trends. Stoic doctrines concerning the seven zones of the world subsume the philosophical learning of the eclogue48, and an additional philosophical colouring is provided by the attraction theory of the vik_a suggested in vv. 29 – 31. However, despite their philosophical colouring, such notions have their intertexts in Neronian epic poetry as well, namely Luc. 4.189 – 9149, thus bringing the singing match once again away from traditional / pre-Neronian pastoral concerns towards the philosophical taste50 of the main Neronian epic text. The taste for ‘epic / epicising models’ is also expressed through Ladas’ presentation of Apollo as the inventor of the paean, after the killing of the dragon Python51. In vv. 32 – 3 Phoebus is depicted as produc47 Amat 1997, 215 also thinks that ‘l’ allusion au tonnerre de Zeus paraît claire’; see also Merfeld 1999, 124 and n.6. 48 For the (Stoic) philosophical background of the passage, cf. Loesch 1909, 34 – 42, Morelli 1914, 129 – 30, Duff and Duff 1934, 328 – 9, Schmid 1953, 92 – 3, Verdière 1954, 266, Scheda 1966, 381 – 4, 1969, 18, Amat 1997, 215 – 6, Hubbard 1998, 141, Merfeld 1999, 125. For a possible association of these rather Posidonian views (cf. Pearce 1992, 104) with the theology of Sol Invictus and thus Nero’s solar cult as part of Ladas’ praise of the emperor, cf. Amat 1997, 139 – 40; see also 1998, 198. 49 Cf. also Verdière 1954, 266, Korzeniewski 1971, 113. 50 Cf. also Cizek 1972, 379 of the philosophical elements: ‘insolites dans la bouche des pâtres’. 51 Cf. also Pearce 1992, 104, Schubert 1998, 149 – 50. For a possible association of Python’s killing with Nero’s escaping the bite of a snake in his childhood, see Amat 1997, 216. On the basis of v. 32 (laetus caede draconis), Korzeniewski 1966, 352 sees in these lines a criticism of Nero’s murders. Merfeld 1999, 125 reads instead the image of an Apollo healer, an Apollo triumphing over the evil and the chaos (cf. also Scheda 1969, 18 – 9 further pointing the allegorical Stoicism of the myth, Effe – Binder 1989, 132); in a similar vein Apollo / Nero also emerges as the healer of the wounds caused by the Claudian regime. In any case all these philosophical undertones do constitute once again something novel in pastoral ‘generic terms’. Döpp 1993, 252 – 4, on the other hand,

292

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

ing learned songs (v. 33: docta repercusso generavit carmina plectro), as the result of his joy over the slaughter of the dragon (v. 32: cum laetus caede draconis). Although the paean was associated with other divinities apart from Apollo (Dionysus, Asclepius, etc.), and occurred in several functions of the ancient world (symposia, public funerals, imprecations against a menacing disease), its specific linkage with Apollo and the killing of Python, as here, leads in this case, mainly on the basis of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo 97 ff.52, to the association of the song with the battlefield and the ‘epic code’. The paean in this sense is sung before the troops engage in polemic action or alternatively after a victory is achieved. Ladas once again chooses to praise Apollo not in his traditional pastoral function but as the initiator of a song type rather associated with the epic world. The characterisation docta (v. 33) is also important: although doctus has the meaning of ‘learned’53, it is also a term of the neoteric – Callimachean jargon of the genus tenue, and thus may be read, in conjunction with the accumulation of similar catchwords at the beginning of the eclogue, as producing meaning on the meta-linguistic level as well. Thus the description of a song type, demonstrably not aspiring to neoteric sensibilities as exhibited by the relevant programmatic accounts of the genus tenue, by means of a distinct neoteric slogan points once again to the ‘meta-linguistic blurriness’ of pastoral poetics after Vergil, cf. also p. 279. The narrative continues with a further philosophical touch, of a rather Epicurean colouring, in v. 34: caelestes ulli si sunt 54 and then Ladas significantly appeals to the Muses55 (v. 35: venerat ad modulos doctarum turba sororum) and not to the pastoral Nymphs, here qualified by way of the neoteric catchword doctus. The Muses are here characterised

52 53 54

55

does not see in Ladas’ lyrics any reference to Nero whatsoever; for the scholar it is in Thamyras’ lines that one may look for the image of the Apolline Nero, for Nero as ‘Inkarnation apollinischer Kunst’ (cf. p. 254); yet for a compelling criticism of this thesis, cf. also Merfeld 1999, especially p. 128. Cf. also Theiler 1956, 574, Nisetich 2001, 207; see also Bömer 1969, 133 – 4. For a possible association of docta carmina with didactic poetry in particular, cf. Schubert 1998, 150. Cf. also Cizek 1972, 379 – 80. For an association of this view with Nero’s agnosticism (cf. Suet. Ner. 56), cf. Theiler 1956, 574, Korzeniewski 1966, 353, Amat 1997, 216; see also Verdière 1954, 267. Effe – Binder 1989, 133, Merfeld 1999, 126, on the other hand, see in si of the line an affirmative syntactical function. Cf. also Verdière 1985, 1895, Pearce 1992, 105, Merfeld 1999, 127.

Thamyras’ Song

293

as sorores, by means of a characterisation that, although not without parallels in the pastoral corpus, is obviously related to the elegiac poet Gallus (Verg. Ecl. 6.6556), crucially incarnating within Vergilian pastoral the ‘generic tension’ between pastoral and elegy (cf. Ecl. 10 and introduction, pp. 34 – 5): yet this qualification of the Muses appears chiefly in literary genres other than pastoral, mainly in elegy (Prop. 2.30.27, 3.1.17, see also Ov. Trist. 2.13, 5.12.45) and epic (Ov. Met. 5.25557).

Thamyras’ Song At this point, Thamyras58 interrupts Ladas, although the latter’s appeal to the Muses implies his desire to continue with his singing performance. The breaking off of Ladas’ speech may be seen as a further indication of Thamyras’ aggressive character59. Hostility between two bucolic singers about to engage in song exchange is often at the heart of a pastoral boujokiasl|r, cf. Theocr. 5, Verg. Ecl. 3, 7 vs. Calp. 6 and the relevant discussions in chapters 2 and 6, pp. 95 ff., 213. Thamyras’ failure to pledge his own wager, his excessive self-confidence as to the outcome of the singing match as well as Ladas’ negative characterisation of Thamyras’ conduct as insane (cf. v. 13: insanis…verbis) conforms to this pastoral pattern. But according to the ‘pastoral norm’, one would normally expect this initial enmity to be finally resolved during the singing performances that follow; but in the present case, no such reconciliation takes place; Thamyras’ aggressive personality keeps resurfacing. Thamyras also invokes the Pierian Muses instead of the expected pastoral Nymphs, v. 36: huc huc, Pierides, volucri concedite saltu. This initial ‘unpastoral’ sign is complemented by subsequent remarks regarding the

56 Cf. Theiler 1956, 574. 57 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 79, 113. 58 In v. 35 I do not see a lacuna with Baehrens, Riese and Verdière (cf. the relevant account of these views in Amat 1997, 216); instead I think that (cf. also Bücheler 1871, 237, Korzeniewski 1966, 346 and n.3, Scheda 1969, 15, Merfeld 1999, 127) that Thamyras simply interrupts Ladas at this point, although the latter would have preferred to continue his narrative. 59 For Thamyras’ antagonistic and quarrelsome character vs. a more conciliatory Ladas, cf. especially Scheda 1969, 7 – 16. See also Crusius 1895, 380, Korzeniewski 1966, 345, Merfeld 1999, 115.

294

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

epic production of the emperor60. The fall of Troy is justifiable, since it inspired the emperor (vv. 38 – 41), and thus the city is presented as avenging itself on its conqueror, v. 39: Agamemnoniis opus hoc ostende Mycenis! 61. Nero is admired for his epic poem, which made Homer take the vitta off his head and put it on the head of the emperor as a declaration of the latter’ superiority in the epic genre, and also made Mantua, i. e., Vergil, tear up his scripts (vv. 44 – 9) 62. 60 For Lucan and not Nero as a possible epic paragon here, cf. the rather unconvincing argument of Hubbard 1998, 143. 61 Probably a reference to Nero’s epic account of the fall of Troy (.kysir Yk_ou as part of his Tqyij±) recited for the event of the big fire in Rome at 64 AD; yet the whole epic seems to have been completed and publicly delivered quite later (65 AD), cf. also Tac. Ann. 15.39, Suet. Ner. 38, Cass. Dio 62.18, 62.29. Yet, see also Bücheler 1871, 239, Duff and Duff 1934, 329, Bardon 1968, 230, Verdière 1954, 41, 267, Korzeniewski 1966, 347 – 8, 1971, 4, 111, Scheda 1969, 22, Sullivan 1985, 58, 91, Effe – Binder 1989, 133 – 4, Pearce 1992, 105, Amat 1997, 143 – 4, 217, 1998, 194 – 5, Schubert 1998, 153 – 4, Merfeld 1999, 130. According to Cizek 1972, 52, Amat 1997, 143 (cf. also p. 217), 1998, 195, the line (v. 41: vester vos tollit alumnus! – tollere here with the sense of ‘to extol’ or ‘erect’) may be viewed as alluding to the fire and Rome’s rebuilding. For a chronology of the poem around 65 AD, as accepted in this study, cf. especially Hubaux – Hicter 1949, 425 – 37 (speaking of a poem composed for the Neronia of 65), Korzeniewski 1966, 347, 1971, 111, Bartalucci 1976, 101, Romano 1981, 124 – 30, Verdière 1985, 1908 – 12 (beginning of 65); see also Morford 1985, 2029, Sullivan 1985, 57 (late 64 / 65), Mandolfo 1986, 1 – 20, Amat 1997, 143 – 5, 1998, 196 (64 – 5). Scheda 1967, 111 – 5, on the other hand, thinks that the poem was composed in 63 AD or during the first half of 64 AD, cf. also 1969, 24 – 30 and p. 24 in particular for a brief overview of the issue, Merfeld 1999, 131, Schmid 1953, 84 – 5 (59 – 63 AD / most probably 63 AD); see also Amat 1997, 142 and n.59, Vinchesi 1996, 6 and n.2. For a possible influence of another non-pastoral intertext here, the resurgens Troia passage of Ov. Fast. 1.523 – 6, cf. Effe – Binder 1989, 134, Merfeld 1999, 129; see further a similarity with Sen. Ag. 870 – 1, 1011, Tro. 888 – 9, Verdière 1954, 267. 62 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1971, 113, Pearce 1992, 107, Amat 1997, 218. Hubbard 1998, 142 reads here an allusion to Vergil’s testament concerning the burning of his unfinished manuscript of the Aeneid. See also Schubert 1998, 154 – 5. Several critics have understood in Thamyras’ account a reference to a real incident; thus Bücheler 1871, 237 – 8 discerns here a probable allusion to Nero’s victory in the musical contest of a famous festival like the Neronia or the Iuvenalia. Hagen 1871, 147 and Loew 1896, xi–xii read here an allusion to Nero’s public appearance as lyre-player, whereas Scheda 1967, 113 speaks of Nero’s performance as lyre-player in front of a specific audience within the palace. The Eins. author may have been a member of the imperial circle (cf. Bücheler 1871, 240, Butler 1909, 157) and thus have had access to such private functions. More to

Conclusion

295

Alternatively, Thamyras’ account may also be read as a scene of poetic initiation, a ‘Dichterweihe’ setting, also suggested by the presence of Apollo and the Muses as well as the reference to Helikon (vv. 36 – 7), all regular features of poetic-induction scenes63. For example Gallus, in the sixth Vergilian eclogue (vv. 64 – 73, see also Verg. Ecl. 10.21 – 30 and the relevant discussion in chapter 6, p. 221) was led onto Helikon by a Muse and offered by Linus (a son of Apollo’s) Muses’ flute as a sign of poetic initiation; in a similar vein, Nero in the present eclogue is also presented with a token of poetic art, this time of epic excellence, Homer’s vitta64. In this manner, the emperor comes up as the best epigone of Homer65, which may account for Vergil’s disappointed gesture of tearing up his work. Note that the frame of reference is again epic; despite the pastoral setting, pastoral poetry is no longer the focus of the singers’ interest. The epic wording of the passage further enhances this ‘generic ambivalence’: the syntagm ad sidera tollere of v. 38 is a very common expression in the Aeneid66, the adjective Agamemnonius qualifying Mycenae (v. 39) also appears in the same phrase in Verg. A. 6.83867, and tempora vitta as a clausula (v. 46) also occurs in Verg. A. 4.637, 6.665, 10.538 (cf. also 2.133: tempora vittae), see also Ov. Met. 5.11068 in the same metrical position.

Conclusion Time-honoured pastoral motifs flawed by ‘unpastoral’ details are the order of the day in this eclogue as well, creating the sense of a fragile traditional pastoral veneer, as previously discerned chiefly in the case of the Calpurnian pastoral. The Einsiedeln poet either mixes conven-

63 64 65 66 67 68

the point, Sullivan 1985, 58 detects in the lines under question, vv. 38 ff., an implied reference to young Nero’s speech, by means of which he managed to secure for all Trojans exemption from public taxes (cf. also Calp. 1.45, Vinchesi 2002, 142 and n.15). Cf. Effe – Binder 1989, 134 – 5, Merfeld 1999, 127 and n.3, 132 – 5. Cf. Merfeld 1999, 133 and n.4. Cf. Schmid 1953, 86 – 9. 1.103, 2.222, 9.637, 10.262, 11.37, 878, 12.795, cf. Korzeniewski 1971, 79. See also Ov. Met. 1.86 and later V. Fl. 4.555; non-epic instances: Mart. 9.12.7, Plin. Pan. 24.5.5. Cf. also Sil. 1.27 and Korzeniewski 1971, 79. Cf. also Theiler 1956, 577, Korzeniewski 1971, 80. See also Sil. 16.241, Ilias L. 13.

296

Epic Excellence in Pastoral: A Reading of the First Einsiedeln Eclogue

tional pastoral markers (motifs and linguistic / stylistic options) with dispositions or conducts alien to pre-Neronian pastoral genre (e. g. stakes set by only one of the contestants within a setting of a pastoral amoebaean boujokiasl¹r) or chooses bucolic intertexts expressing a desire for ‘generic transcendence’, a ‘generic progress’ away from ‘traditional pastoral’ (e. g. the designation as praemium of the pastoral stake of a singing march). This ‘generic fluidity’ is evident on the level of poetological meta-language as well; customary poetological catchwords denoting neoteric sensibilities of the traditional pastoral genus tenue (levis, formosus, etc.) appear before the song exchange, and thus create the unrealised expectation of a time-honoured pastoral performance: however both songs (Ladas’ and Thamyras’) neither focus on distinct pastoral sensibilities and ideals nor do they promote long-standing pastoral values; having the praise of the emperor as their subject matter, they instead often exhibit a ‘contamination’ on the thematic and the linguistic level with other literary genres, namely epic. The subversion of traditional poetological initiation motifs, such as Cynthius as the inspiring god of the genus tenue, also betrays a changed poetological meta-language. Eins. 1 thus converses with its previous pastoral tradition with a self-conscious desire to ‘transcend’ it on a formalistic as well as on a meta-linguistic level.

Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ The interpretational framework of ‘generic tension’ between pastoral and elegy, a recurrent subject matter in Vergilian pastoral (Ecl. 2, 3, 8, 10, cf. introduction and chapters 2, 3, pp. 5, 9 – 10, 25 – 6, 34 – 5, 42, 49 – 50, 87 ff., 125 ff.), can also be applied to Nemesianus’ second eclogue. Starting from the very first verses, i. e., the narrative framing leading on to the song exchange (vv. 1 – 19), an intermingling of long-established pastoral features with elegiac dispositions is to be read throughout the poem. Although succeeding to a certain extent to create a traditional pastoral atmosphere, the two competing pastoral singers employ motifs having a traceable literary history chiefly in the elegiac genre or adopt topics possessing pastoral parallels, but often understood in the relevant bibliography as ‘elegiac deviations’; furthermore, the poem reworks a number of pastoral issues yet by incorporating them in elegiac settings and thus eventually ‘de-pastoralising’ them. The aim of this chapter is to offer a close reading of both song performances under the ‘generic perspective’ analysed above. The young men’s efforts to overcome their elegiac passion through bucolic song are doomed to fail; as in the case of Gallus in the tenth Vergilian eclogue, where, as already remarked, cf. pp. 34 – 5, 102 – 3, 133, 180 – 1, 234, 256 and n.84, 292 – 3, elegiac passion prevails over bucolic temperament, when the poet finally reasserts his elegiac identity after a short-lived wandering in ‘pastoral space and song’, both characters of Nemesianus’ eclogue under discussion will prove, by means of their song performance, unable to overcome their elegiac passion, despite their pastoral identity. Elegiac passion and the elegiac genre prevail in the end here as well, for according to the lesson of the tenth Vergilian eclogue: omnia vincit Amor: et nos cedamus Amori (Verg. Ecl. 10.69), where Amor may be read both as love-passion and as love-poetry.

298 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’

The Narrative Framing The very first lines of the introductory narrative framing bring up intertextual echoes, which bear witness to the ‘generic ambivalence’ of the eclogue to follow. In vv. 1 – 2: formosam Donacen puer Idas et puer Alcon ardebant, the transitive construction of ardere with an accusative complement (Donacen 1) is first attested in Verg. Ecl. 2.12 : formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin; note here the similar incipit, formosam / formosum in the same metrical position. The phrasing of the initial verse allows a further intertextual connection, this time with the incipit of the second Calpurnian eclogue: the syntagm consisting of the name of the puella (Donacen) preceded by a modifying adjective and followed by the names of her suitors qualified as puer and coordinated by et, (formosam) Donacen puer Idas et puer Alcon, alludes to the incipit of the second Calpurnian eclogue3, v. 1: (intactam) Crocalen puer Astacus et puer Idas, a line that has also been read as modeled on Verg. Ecl. 2.1 (cf. chapter 6, p. 216). Nemesianus resorts here to a ‘double allusion’ or a ‘window reference’4, with both his intertexts crucially implying a ‘generic alteration’ from the earlier ‘pastoral code’ towards the elegiac genre. Corydon of the second Vergilian eclogue assumes, as already remarked, cf. pp. 31, 103, 142, 190, 216, 226, 228 – 9, 230, 247 – 8 and n.39, the role of the elegiac suitor, whereas Idas and Astacus of the second Calpurnian eclogue, although engaged in a pastoral singing match, are involved in a liaison with a puella in an erotic triangle, an elegiac type of relationship that is out of place in the ‘pure’ pastoral world, cf. pp. 115, 133, 215 – 6, 233 and n.77. Therefore, both intertexts belong to the pastoral genre, but with a strong ‘elegiac outlook’, and their presence in the very first verse of this eclogue anticipates its similar ‘generic behaviour’. Elegiac motifs and ideals abound in the lines to follow. Idas and Alcon are presented as suitors of the same girl, although one cannot de1 2 3 4

For Donace as a significant name suggesting, as a derivative form of d|man, musical sensibilities, cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 116; see also Vinchesi 1998, 135 and n.11. Cf. Williams 1986, 129, Stanzel 1989, 184, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 51, Cupaiuolo 1997, 132. Cf. also Kettemann 1977, 115, Vallat 2006, http://. Cf. also Keene 1969, 168, Volpilhac 1975, 47, Korzeniewski 1976, 26, Williams 1986, 129, Walter 1988, 33, 45, Vinchesi 1998, 135 – 6.

The Narrative Framing

299

tect the distinct agonistic erotic rivalry5 discerned in most of similar elegiac state of affairs, where the lover has to cope with a rival putting obstacles to the fulfillment of his love. Strangely, the two shepherds are so free from rivalry that they are presented as simultaneously engaging in sexual intercourse with the puella, vv. 6 – 7: invasere simul…tum primum dulci carpebant gaudia furto. Despite the peculiar character of the affair, it clearly involves two suitors of the same girl, thus moving the reader away from ‘pastoral correctness’ (one suitor – one beloved) towards situations common, within the neoteric discourse, chiefly in the elegiac corpus and the rather elegiac colouring of the Vergilian pastoral in Ecl. 3 and 8 (for this point, cf. also above the relevant remarks on the ‘erotic triangle’, p. 298) 6. As an additional point, the puella, Donace, is depicted as gathering flowers in the nearby garden vales, filling her lap with soft acanthus, vv. 4 – 5: cum vicini flores in vallibus horti / carperet et molli gremium compleret acantho; the flower picking motif, common in ancient literature, is here associated with the subsequent defloration of the virgin, an association having its parallels in a pastoral poet, Moschus, albeit in his not pastoral epyllion, Europa, 2.63 – 717. It seems therefore that Nemesianus chooses a topic drawn from the non-pastoral production of an otherwise pastoral poet, as is occasionally the case with both Vergil and Calpurnius, who incorporate motifs appearing in the Theocritean corpus, but not in the pastoral poems of their Greek bucolic predecessor, cf. pp. 180, 205, 215. As has often been suggested in the case of these ‘unpastoral’ options of the Theocritean corpus, this choice of Nemesianus may be read as suggesting ‘generic modification / diversification’; note that the sequence of the above motifs appears, apart from Moschus’ Europa, in other literary genres as well, but crucially not in pastoral: cf. h. Dem. 5 ff., Ov. Met. 5.392 ff., etc.8. Donace’s rape (v. 6: invasere simul veneri(s) 9que imbutus uterque) is a characteristically ‘unpastoral’ theme, as rape10 does not appear as ‘generic 5 6 7 8

Cf. Hubbard 1998, 183. Cf. also Schäfer 2001, 140, chapter 6, p. 215 and n.14. Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 24, Korzeniewski 1976, 26, Vinchesi 1998, 136. Cf. Walter 1988, 33 – 4 and n.1 on p. 34, Vinchesi 1998, 136 – 7, Nisbet – Rudd 2004, 329. 9 Jönsson 1981, 52 – 3 plausibly opts for the ablative variant veneri, cf. also Cupaiuolo 1997, 124, 133. 10 For invasere here suggesting ‘forcible rape’, cf. Hubbard 1998, 183 and n.68. Yet, any sexual intercourse with a maiden may be described in Roman litera-

300 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ motif’ in pastoral, but constitutes instead a topic of other literary genres, mainly of comedy. The untoward event has in Nemesianus’ eclogue a further ‘unbucolic’ effect, the thickened resonance of the girl’s voice, according to the popular belief 11 that the loss of virginity results in an increased thickness of the neck, blushes and enlarged veins (vv. 11 – 3). In literature, this diagnostic is to be found only in the Catullan epyllion, 64.37712. The ‘unpastoral’ character of the enlarged neck is obvious not only through its literary antecedents; Donace’s lost maidenhood accounts for the destruction of a ‘pastoral ideal’, the fine music of the human voice, indispensable for the sweetness of pastoral song: Donace is crucially described as having lost the tenue filum of her voice (v. 11: quod non tam tenui filo de voce sonaret) to a fearsome ‘thickened sound’13 (v. 12: sollicitumque foret pinguis sonus). She is thus credited with an anti-neoteric meta-linguistic term (pinguis, see chapter 1, pp. 77 – 8; see also pp. 146, 274) and is consequently deprived of its corresponding neoteric – Callimachean meta-linguistic virtue (tenuis), now belonging to a lost past. In other words, Donace’s ‘unpastoral’ defloration causes the loss not only of her music, but also of the Callimachean – neoteric quality of her diction. The motif of the clausa puella 14 in vv. 10 ff. also possesses elegiac overtones: after realising their daughter’s loss of virginity, Donace’ s parents imprison her, so as to keep her away from her two lovers. Although Castagna 1970, 436 detects here a Callimachean influence, namely fr. 401 Pf.15, this Nemesianian instance is clearly a variation of a common elegiac motif, the paqajkaus_huqom : a closed door denies the elegiac lover access to his sweetheart, cf. e. g. Hor. Carm. 3.10,

11 12 13 14 15

ture as rape, irrespective of whether or not the puella regards it so, cf. Ov. Ars 1.677 – 8, Adams 1982, 198. In any case Donace’s reactions to this intercourse are not recorded, for, as often happens in ancient literature, sexual pleasure is seen from the male perspective. For a not very compelling reading of Donace’s rape and of the whole of the narrative in general as a ‘rite de passage’, cf. Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 43 – 9. Cf. Tromaras 2001, 500 – 1. See also Williams 1986, 134. Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 67, Korzeniewski 1976, 117, Cupaiuolo 1997, 134, Pearce 1992, 40, Vinchesi 1998, 138 – 9. Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 171 – 2 claims that the young girl is pregnant; see also Hubbard 1998, 183. As translated by Duff and Duff 1934, 465. For an overview of the various meanings ascribed to sollicitum, cf. especially Cupaiuolo 1997, 134. For the term, cf. also Walter 1988, 34. Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 27. For a criticism of this thesis, cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 131, Vinchesi 1998, 137 – 8.

The Narrative Framing

301

Tib. 1.2, Prop. 1.16, 2.9a, Ov. Am. 1.6, 2.19, cf. also Tib. 2.3.77 where Nemesis is also a puella clausa by her dives amator, and Prop. 3.14.2316. The motif of the stern father standing in the way of his child’s erotic bliss is also central in Roman comedy, where the senex durus is a typical ‘blocking character’, but it has parallels in the novel17 and in the elegiac genre as well, cf. Ov. Rem. 563 – 4, Epist. 11.6; see also Am. 1.15.17 – 8. Both young men decide that singing will help them alleviate their erotic pain (vv.14 – 5); emotional relief through song is a motif that has its pastoral equivalent in Theocr. 11, where the story of the Cyclops Polyphemus’ love for Galatea is framed by a gnomic addressed to the doctor Nikias, to the effect that song can lessen the pangs of love; in fact, the Cyclops story is meant to constitute an exemplum18 of this. However, the pastoral intertext comes, as is often the case in post-Theocritean pastoral exhibiting a certain degree of ‘generic comprehensiveness and fluidity’, from an idyll (Id. 11) displaying a certain ‘generic distance’ from the ‘pastoral norm’, as previously elaborated in detail (cf. chapter 5, p. 200). What is more, in opposition to the present Nemesianian case, the pastoral intertext concerns an unreciprocated, unconsummated love-affair, where the lover tries to secure for himself the Nymph’s affections. Indeed, what chiefly differentiates pastoral love from elegiac liaisons is that in bucolic poetry a love-affair is pursued rather than explicitly existing as in Nemes. 219, yet, cf. the ‘elegising lines’, 64 ff., of Verg. Ecl. 3 (see chapter 2, pp. 112 ff.). With the exception of the eighth Vergilian eclogue (especially Alphesiboeus’ song), where a clear elegiac intrusion has already been observed (cf. chapter 3, pp. 144 ff.), and of the also elegiac relationship of Gallus with Lycoris in the tenth Vergilian eclogue, cf. also above p. 297, in all other instances of Theocritean and Vergilian pastoral the pain of love is caused by the infeasibility of a future liaison rather than by a broken affair (cf. Theocr. 3, 6, 11, Verg. Ecl. 2). In the Calpurnian pastoral as well, Calp. 3, the consummated erotic relationship between Lycidas and Phyllis and the sorrow caused by Phyllis’ disloyalty have long been read as instances of elegiac influence in the Calpurnian pastoral oeuvre20. 16 Cf. Vinchesi 1998, 137. 17 Cf. Vinchesi 1998, 138. See also Ov. Met. 4.60 – 2 with Cupaiuolo 1997, 131. 18 Cf. especially Hunter 1999, 223 – 4. See also Pearce 1992, 41, Cupaiuolo 1997, 17, 135. 19 Cf. also Friedrich 1976, 60, Fey-Wickert 2002, 166 – 7. 20 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 143 – 235 passim, and 22 – 9; for an influence of the elegiac Calp. 3 on Nemes. 2, cf. also Stanzel 1989, 197 – 201.

302 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ In the poem under discussion, both singers try to overcome an elegiac loss by means of songs formally aspiring to the pastoral genre. From this perspective, Idas and Alcon may be read as having the elegiac poet Gallus of the tenth Vergilian eclogue as their immediate pastoral intertext, and the wording of the text also supports this reading. Vergil’s Gallus, as often remarked, cf. again above p. 297, endeavours to overcome his elegiac distress by entering the ‘green cabinet’ and appropriating the norms of the ‘pastoral code’; in a similar vein, Idas and Alcon are presented as trying to relieve their elegiac passion (vv. 14 – 5) with the sweet plaint of their songs, which is crucially described as querella, i. e., by way of a key-term denoting elegiac poetry21, and is equally significantly qualified by the adjective dulcis, a further well-known metalinguistic term suggesting the genus tenue to which elegy generically belongs. The elegiac disposition of the young herdsmen is further underlined by the fire imagery, associated with the frustrated lover (especially the verb ardere 22), v. 14: tum vero ardentes flammati pectoris aestus, a common elegiac image (cf. also Catul. 64.124, 195 – 7, Ov. Ars 2.377 – 8, Rem. 287 – 8). Idas and Alcon thus try to alleviate elegiac passion by means of pastoral singing (v. 15: carminibus), in the sense of songs delivered within the pastoral setting of a song exchange, within the textual setting of a poem formally belonging to the pastoral genre. In the wake of Gallus, the two singers will prove in the end, through the topics they choose and their handling of them, unable to overcome their elegiac sensibilities. The ‘elegiac outlook’ of the previous lines is followed by a common pastoral pattern in vv. 16 – 923 ; these four lines, in imitation of [Theocr.] 8.3 – 4, Verg. Ecl. 7.4 – 5 and Calp. 2.1 – 724, give the names of the two singers, Idas and Alcon, i. e., names not coming from Vergil, but prob-

21 For queror and its derivatives as denoting the elegiac genre, cf. also Maltby 2002, 157, Hor. Epod. 11.12, Ars 75, Tib. 1.2.9, Prop. 1.7.8. See also Ov. Am. 3.9.3 – 4. 22 Cf. Pichon 1966, 88 – 9. 23 Cf. also Walter 1988, 34 – 5. 24 Castagna 1970, 420 – 1 reads in Nemesianus’ passage a ‘double allusion’ to [Theocr.] 8 and Verg. Ecl. 7. See also Keene 1969, 170, Verdière 1966, 180, Volpilhac 1975, 48, Korzeniewski 1976, 28, Walter 1988, 33, 34 – 5, Hubbard 1998, 184 – 5, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 52, Cupaiuolo 1997, 134 – 5, Vinchesi 1998, 139, Fey-Wickert 2002, 57. On Nemes. 2, Stanzel 1989, 199 further reads an influence by Theocr. 1.33 – 4.

Idas’ Song

303

ably from Calp. 2 and 625 and thus implying the Calpurnian influence on Nemesianus. The two contestants are presented as equal in terms of beauty (v. 16), age (vv. 16 – 7), external appearance (v. 17) and musical competence (v. 16), but each has a chosen field of musical excellence: Idas practises flute-playing, whereas Alcon sings, v. 19: Idas calamis et versibus Alcon, according to a distinction reminiscent of a further pastoral intertext, Verg. Ecl. 5.1 – 326. Idas and Alcon, whose virtues have been thus described by means of a familiar pastoral pattern, are also presented in a distinct pastoral situation, i. e., under the shade of a tree, ready to start performing. But this shady tree is no longer the pine tree of Theocritean or the beech of Vergilian pastoral, and neither is it a combination of default pastoral trees; it is instead the Calpurnian plane tree (cf. Calp. 4.227), also suggesting the extended accumulated pastoral tradition Nemesianus is working with, which includes Calpurnian bucolics as well. However, the conventional bucolic veneer is somehow watered down by the very picture of the young men singing in order to alleviate their elegiac erotic plight (vv. 18 – 9).

Idas’ Song The key-term alternant (v. 19), a terminus technicus denoting the song exchange of the pastoral genre28, signals the beginning of the singing match; but this song exchange is not articulated on the basis of a strophic alternation, consisting instead of two longer integral songs of equal length29, a pattern known mainly from the sixth and the seventh Theocritean idyll, [Theocr.] 9, the fifth and the eighth Vergilian eclogue as well as the first Einsiedeln bucolic30. Idas starts his song with a common pastoral appeal to the Nymphs (vv. 20 – 2), who, as already previously remarked, take the place of the inspiring Muses in the pastoral pantheon, cf. e. g. pp. 222 – 3; but the distinction that Idas makes between woodland Dryads, cave Napaean Nymphs and Naiads (vv. 20 – 1) has no parallels in the previous bucolic tradition. Significantly, the simultane25 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 182 – 3. 26 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 48, Williams 1986, 134, Walter 1988, 36 and n.2, Cupaiuolo 1997, 135, Hubbard 1998, 185 and n.70, Vinchesi 1998, 139 and n.26. 27 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 28, Walter 1988, 35. 28 Cf. Pearce 1992, 41, Walter 1998, 46. 29 Cf. Walter 1988, 47, Hubbard 1998, 183. 30 Cf. also Stanzel 1989, 198, Effe – Binder 1989, 158.

304 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ ous appeal to the Dryads and the Napaean Nymphs does have a literary precedent, this time in the georgic literature, Colum. 10.1.1.264: Maenaliosque choros dryadum nymphasque Napaeas 31. The allusion imparts a slight georgic touch to the otherwise pastoral formulation of the invocation. What is more, the image of the Naiads cutting through the waters with their marble white feet, and the very wording of the depiction (vv. 21 – 2: et quae marmoreo pede, Naiades, uda secatis litora), hark back to an elegiac intertext, Ov. Am. 2.11.15: litora marmoreis pedibus signate, puellae 32, thus giving an elegiac tone that will become even clearer in the following verses. Idas then asks the Nymphs to show him the shadow under which he will find his sweetheart (vv. 23 – 4: dicite, quo Donacen prato, qua forte sub umbra inveniam). The puella sitting under the shadow of a tree is a pastoral image, but the combination of white and pink in the image of the white lilies in her rosy hands (v. 24: roseis stringentem lilia palmis?) belongs rather to the elegiac practice; it is thus about the common elegiac motif by means of which female beauty is described with the white-rose colour combination, cf. Catul. 61.187 – 8: alba parthenice velut luteumve papaver (for the bride waiting for her groom in the wedding chamber), Ov. Am. 2.5.37: quale rosae fulgent inter sua lilia mixtae, 3.3.5 – 6: candida candorem roseo suffusa rubore / ante fuit – niveo lucet in ore rubor 33. The equally elegiac expression dicite quo (v. 23), otherwise appearing in Latin literature only in Prop. 1.8a.24 and 3.1.534, further enhances the elegiac colouring of the passage. Idas continues his song by expressing the common elegiac grief of the lover over the absence or non-appearance of his beloved (cf. e. g. 31 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 48, Korzeniewski 1976, 29, Walter 1988, 39 – 40, Cupaiuolo 1997, 136, Vinchesi 1998, 140. 32 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 48, Korzeniewski 1976, 29, Williams 1986, 135, Cupaiuolo 1997, 136, Vinchesi 1998, 140, 2009, 149 and n.31. 33 For the complexion of the elegiac puella, as a result of the embarrassment she experiences, when her lover finds out her infidelity, for the unchanged beauty of the elegiac puella, even after her cheating on her lover respectively; see also Korzeniewski 1971, 33, Vinchesi 1991, 273, 1998, 140, Fey-Wickert 2002, 219. See also Verg. A. 12.68 – 9: mixta rubent ubi lilia multa alba rosa in relation to Lavinia; although an epic incident, the disposition of the passage is clearly erotic / elegiac in tone (cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 219), comprising the wellknown elegiac triangle of a puella and her two suitors (Aeneas – Turnus); for the often ‘elegiac outlook’ of the Aeneis, cf. Hübner 1968. For the erotic undertones of this colour combination, cf. also Walter 1988, 39. 34 Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 136.

Idas’ Song

305

Tib. 2.3, [Tib.] 3.9, Prop. 1.8, 1.11, 1.12, 2.19, Ov. Am. 1.12, 2.11), whom he has not seen for quite a long time (three days in the case under question, vv. 25 – 6), since the girl does not turn up for their ‘rendez vous’ (for the equally elegiac motif of ‘not showing up for a date’, cf. Tib. 1.8.63 – 4, Prop. 2.17, 2.22b.43 ff., Ov. Epist. 19) 35. The antrum, which in the third Theocritean idyll functioned as the natural habitat of Amaryllis, out of which the goatherd endeavoured to entice her in a gesture reminiscent of the elegiac j_lor, assumes here as well the function of the elegiac trysting place between the lover and his puella. Idas’ song goes on to elaborate a number of bucolic motifs, yet twisting them in an elegiac direction. First comes the standard pastoral motif of the pathetic fallacy, and Idas’ cows are accordingly presented as abstaining from grazing and drinking for three days (vv. 29 – 30), an image having a pastoral intertext in Verg. Ecl. 5.24 – 636, see especially vv. 25 – 6: nulla neque amnem / libavit quadrupes nec graminis attigit herbam, cf. also Theocr. 1.71 – 5, [Moschus] 3.23 – 437. However, in the latter cases the sympathetic reaction of the animals is caused by the loss of the pastoral singer par excellence; but in Nemesianus’ case it is no longer the pastoral loss of Daphnis / Bion that makes Idas’ cows to keep off from food and drink but their master’s elegiac pathos; the cattle thus refrain from touching the grass and sipping the waters from any stream in order to offer consolation or heal their owner’s passion, vv. 27 – 8. This association of the pastoral with the elegiac genre is further underlined by v. 28: hoc foret aut nostros posset medicare furores, alluding to Verg. Ecl. 10.6038 : tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris. In the line of its intertext, Nemesianus’ poem provides a bucolic solution for an elegiac situation (the loss of the puella with whom the pastoral lover had previously ‘had it off’). However, as in the case of the tenth Vergilian eclogue, the pastoral treatment proves unable to rescue the lover from his elegiac plight, the coniuctivus irrealis of foret and posset (v. 28) also pointing to the inefficacy of the pastoral cure. The image of the dried udders of female animals having recently delivered (v. 31: siccaque fetarum lambentes ubera matrum), which causes the 35 Cf. also Murgatroyd 1991, 251. 36 Cf. Schetter 1975, 29, Volpilhac 1975, 26, Korzeniewski 1976, 29, Williams 1986, 135, Walter 1988, 39 and n.2, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 53, Cupaiuolo 1997, 137, Hubbard 1998, 186, Vinchesi 1998, 140 and n.29. 37 Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 29, Cupaiuolo 1997, 138. 38 Cf. Schetter 1975, 29, Volpilhac 1975, 48, Korzeniewski 1976, 29, Walter 1988, 39 and n.2, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 52, Cupaiuolo 1997, 137.

306 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ lowing of their babies, belongs to the motif of reversed pastoral order associated with the loss of a central pastoral value (cf. e. g. Verg. Ecl. 5.37 ff., where the havoc is due to Daphnis’ loss; see also Theocr. 1.132 ff., chapters 4, 7, pp. 161 ff., 264). Here, however, the motif is again associated with Idas’ elegiac pain. It is true that the reversal of pastoral order is connected with the absence of the beloved in previous bucolic poetry as well, cf. [Theocr.] 8.41 – 3, 4839, Verg. Ecl. 7.55 – 6 (cf. also chapter 7, pp. 264, 265); but the present Nemesianian instance concerns a consummated elegiac love-affair of obviously ‘unpastoral’ dimensions40. Idas’ elegiac plight results in his indifference towards everyday pastoral occupations, in this case the making of baskets for milk curdling (vv. 33 – 4). Every day menial tasks often appear in the background of more important pastoral activities, such as singing; but the suspension of menial activities (cf. also Theocr. 1.52 – 3) is also associated in both Theocritean and Vergilian pastoral with the erotic distress of a pastoral lover, cf. e. g. Theocr. 11.73 and Verg. Ecl. 2.71 – 241. In any case it is worth noting that both these intertexts, as has often been remarked, cf. above pp. 298, 301, ‘deviate’ towards the elegiac genre. Yet another more pertinent parallel comes from the demonstrably elegiac Calp. 3.68 – 942, where, in a similar vein, Lycidas expresses his elegiac feeling of erotic loss by not weaving baskets any longer; as is the case with Nemesianus’ Donace, Calpurnius’ Phyllis was involved with Lycidas for some time before their separation (an elegiac rather than pastoral situation). The imagery of basket weaving has clear poetological undertones in Vergilian pastoral, suggesting as it does the very making of the bucolic poetry and also evoking the weaving of a cricket-cage by the boy symbolising the pastoral poet in the programmatic ivy cup of the first Theocritean idyll, cf. Theocr. 1.52 (see also introduction, pp. 13 – 4; cf. also p. 102 and n.63, 147, 159). Thus in his tenth eclogue, Vergil presents himself (v. 71) as the pastoral poet weaving (texit) his basket / pastoral poetry (fiscellam) with a slender willow, gracili hibisco, where the catch39 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 30. 40 Cf. the relevant remarks above, p. 301 and n.19. 41 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 30, Cupaiuolo 1997, 139, Hubbard 1998, 186 – 7, Fey-Wickert 2002, 209. 42 For Calp. 3.68 – 9 as also modeled on Verg. Ecl. 10.71, cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 209. See also Schetter 1975, 30, Volpilhac 1975, 49, Korzeniewski 1976, 30, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 53, Cupaiuolo 1997, 139.

Idas’ Song

307

word gracilis, denoting neoteric poetological aspirations, marks the poetological orientation of the Vergilian pastoral poetry, cf. pp. 34, 253 – 443. Meta-poetic readings are in the foreground of the incipit of Nemes. 1.1 – 2 as well: dum fiscella tibi fluviali, Tityre, iunco texitur, where the aged pastoral poet Tityrus, identified with Vergil44 or with previous bucolic tradition in general45, is presented as weaving a basket out of river rush, thus alluding to Verg. Ecl. 10.71 and 2.71 – 246, where, after his ‘elegiac discourse’, Corydon is also presented as urging himself to weave something out of tender rush, a sign of his eventual comeback to ‘pastoral correctness’. Similar meta-linguistic terms appear in Nemesianus’ passage in question, in a reversed setting though: Idas’ elegiac passion makes him refrain from weaving baskets of pliable sedge (v. 33: iunco molli) and supple osier (v. 33: vimine lento); mollis and lentus are further well-known catchwords of Callimachean undertones, like the gracilis of the tenth Vergilian eclogue47. In other words, Idas’ ‘unpastoral’ elegiac passion not only keeps him away from a default pastoral occupation but also, on a meta-linguistic level, ‘jeopardises’ the pastoral neoteric quality of his poetic performance. The following lines (vv. 35 – 6) develop the wealth motif, common in the rhetoric of pastoral lovers trying to win over the affections of their ‘better half’, cf. Theocr. 11.34 – 7, Verg. Ecl. 2.19 – 22, Calp. 2.68 – 75, 3.63 – 948. As is evident from the above list of loci simili, the motif appears in pastoral, but mostly in eclogues where a ‘generic attraction’ towards the elegiac genre has often been diagnosed. The elegiac colouring is reinforced here through the allusion to Calp. 3.63 – 949, the eclogue that has frequently been read, as previously remarked, cf. p. 306, as elegy in pastoral form. Apart from the fact that Calp. 3 is also centered on a 43 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 138. 44 Vs. the younger Timetas equated with Nemesianus, cf. Schetter 1975, 7 – 8; see also introduction, p. 47. 45 Cf. Walter 1988, 29 – 31. 46 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 179. 47 For gracilis as a meta-linguistic term suggesting Vergilian pastoral poetics, cf. also the alternative incipit of the Aeneid: Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus avena; for this variant as known in Nemesianus’ period, cf. Hubbard 1998, 180 and n.60. 48 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 49, Korzeniewski 1976, 30, 118, Stanzel 1989, 200 and n.42, Pearce 1992, 43 – 4, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 53, Cupaiuolo 1997, 139 – 40, Vinchesi 1998, 140. 49 Cf. Walter 1988, 39 and n.2, Stanzel 1989, 198 and n.39, Hubbard 1998, 188, Fey-Wickert 2002, 119.

308 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ long-standing elegiac relationship, and not an unfulfilled ‘pastoral’ affair, the crucial detail that brings Nemes. 2 close to Calp. 3 is that in both cases the puella already has some knowledge of the lover’s wealth, cf. v. 35: quid tibi, quae nosti, referam?, see also Calp. 3.65: quid tibi quae nosti referam? scis, optima Phylli) 50. What is more, the motif ultimately derives from a non-pastoral version of the Polyphemus and Galatea story, namely Ov. Met. 13.821 – 3051, something which further emphasises the ‘generic diversification’ of Nemesianus’ passage. This eventual intertextual allusion to the Polyphemus – Acis – Galatea triangle in the Ovidian Metamorphoses further highlights the ‘generic polyphony’ of the instance in question, for this Ovidian model is a clear case of a story in the business of exploring the limits of pastoral, elegy and epic, an obvious case of ‘generic interaction’ between these three ‘generic codes’, as excellently discussed by Farrell 1992a, 235 – 6852. Donace’s interruption of her lover’s song / musical performance with kisses (vv. 37 – 9) is another indicator of elegiac disposition; this is an image appearing in Calpurnian pastoral as well, crucially in the elegiac third eclogue vv. 56 – 853, when kisses are only demanded from the pastoral lover but never obtained (cf. Theocr. 3.19, 11.55 – 6). Other literary instantiations of the kiss interrupting either song or speech are to be found in elegy, cf. Ov. Am. 2.4.26, Epist. 3.128, 13.119 – 20, 15.44, Ars 1.663 and in erotic settings of the epic genre, cf. Ov. Met. 10.559,

50 Cf. Keene 1969, 172, Korzeniewski 1976, 30, Pearce 1992, 44, Fey-Wickert 2002, 206, who convincingly remarks that Nemesianus takes from Calpurnius the image of a puella aware of her lover’s wealth as well as the picture of the heifers and the milking pails (vv. 35 – 6); but in opposition to the Calpurnian intertext, which remains vague as to the exact number of animals Lycidas owns, Nemesianus’ passage gives an exact number (v. 35: mille iuvencas) in imitation of the Vergilian model, Ecl. 2.21 (cf. also Schetter 1975, 31); the image of the never emptying milking pails may also be traced back to Vergil, Ecl. 2.22, cf. also Hubbard 1998, 188 – 9. For a possible allusion to the exact number (one thousand) of cattle of Theocritus’ Polyphemus in Id. 11.34, see also Hubbard 1998, 189 51 Cf. Friedrich 1976, 95, Fey-Wickert 2002, 206. 52 For a similar approach in the case of Persephone story in Ov. Met. 5, see especially Hinds 1987, 115 – 34. 53 Cf. Verdière 1966, 179 – 80, Keene 1969, 172, Schetter 1975, 31 – 2, Volpilhac 1975, 49, Korzeniewski 1976, 30, Walter 1988, 39 and n.2, 40, Stanzel 1989, 198, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 171 and n.68, Pearce 1992, 45, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 53, Cupaiuolo 1997, 31, 140, Vinchesi 1998, 140 and n.32.

Idas’ Song

309

Stat. Ach. 1.575 – 654. The formula ille ego sum followed by a relative clause as a means of self-presentation is yet another link between Nemesianus and Calp. 3 (Calp. 3.55 – 6: ille ego sum Lycidas, quo…cui…, Nemes. 2.37: ille ego sum, Donace, cui...); needless to say, it is also about a stylistic feature which, despite its occurrence in other literary genres especially in erotic contexts, cf. Tib. 1.6.31 – 2, Ov. Met 4.226, Fast. 3.505, has no pastoral precedents55. Distinct elegiac symptoms also emerge in the lines to follow (vv. 40 – 3). Idas has the pale colour of the elegiac lover; although the frame of reference is the Calpurnian pastoral box tree (cf. Calp. 4.74, see also Bion fr. 13.3 and the non-bucolic Theocr. 24.110) and the Vergilian pastoral white violet (v. 41: pallidior buxo violaeque simillimus erro56, cf. Verg. Ecl. 2.47, 5.38, 10.39, cf. also Theocr. 1.132 and the non-bucolic Theocr. 10.28, [Theocr.] 23.29, Mosch. 2.66), suggesting again the accumulated Roman pastoral tradition Nemesianus draws from, the image of a lover pale with erotic suffering is a standard elegiac theme (cf. Tib. 1.8.51 – 2, Prop. 1.1.22, 1.5.19 – 21, 1.9.17, 1.13.7, 1.15.39, 3.8.28, 4.3.28, Ov. Am. 3.6.25 – 6, Ars 1.729, 731 – 2, 2.446, 3.703, Epist. 11.7757) that appears in pastoral only in ‘generically ambivalent’ instances, cf. also Calp. 3.4558. The use of the verb erro in order to denote the aimless wandering of the lover is also not accidental, as the immediate pastoral intertext comes from Verg. Ecl. 6.5259 : a! virgo infelix, tu nunc in montibus eras, describing Pasiphae’s erotic plight. This story belongs to the elegiac collection of Parthenius’ 9qytij± Pah^lata and is, within Roman literature, a favourite subject matter with the elegiac and not the pastoral genre, cf. chapters 1, 3, pp. 83, 142, 14960. The Vergilian intertext betrays through its style a further rather ‘unpastoral’ novelty, since the a! plus vocative incipit is a distinct feature of the neoteric epyllion61. The use of the 54 Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 30 – 1, Vinchesi 1991, 271, Cupaiuolo 1997, 140, Reeson 2001, 182, Fey-Wickert 2002, 197 – 8. 55 Cf. also Ov. Trist. 4.5.12, Mart. 9.28.1 – 3, 10.53.1, 3, Stat. Th. 11.165, Korzeniewski 1976, 30, Walter 1988, 38 and n.2, Fey-Wickert 2002, 198. 56 Cf. also Verdière 1966, 180, Korzeniewski 1976, 118. 57 Cf. also Vinchesi 1991, 269, Murgatroyd 1991, 248 – 9, Fey-Wickert 2002, 187 – 8. See also in erotic lyric poetry Hor. Carm. 3.10.14 (a paqajkaus_huqom). 58 Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 140. 59 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 193. 60 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 148 – 9, 332 and n.144. 61 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 149, chapter 1, p. 83.

310 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ verb erro to denote the purposeless drifting of a lover is also to be met with in an eclogue of ‘blurred generic identity’ as well, namely the elegiac third Calpurnian eclogue, in a line where other ‘unpastoral’ motifs also appear in concentration. Lycidas thus presents himself as pointlessly wandering, worn out by the absence of his mistress: v. 50: ut Lycidas domina sine Phyllide tabidus erro62 ; the use of domina for denoting the beloved does not have any parallels in the pastoral corpus63, whereas it is common in the elegiac genre (cf. Tib. 2.3.83, 2.4.1, Ov. Am. 2.17.5, 2.18.17, Epist. 9.74, Ars 1.50464). Similarly, tabidus in the sense of ‘worn out because of a sorrowful love-affair’ is also ‘unpastoral’, since it appears along with its cognates, especially the verbal form tabescere, primarily in Roman love elegy (cf. Prop. 1.15.20, 3.6.23; see also Ov. Epist. 21.60)65 as well as in erotic settings of the epic genre (Verg. A. 6.442, Ov. Met. 3.445)66. The following instances can also be largely attributed to elegiac influence: a) the loss of appetite in vv. 42 – 3: omnes ecce cibos et nostri pocula Bacchi horeo; the motif appears in the Theocritean corpus in the non-bucolic poems, i. e., in the second urban mime, vv. 88 – 90, along with the pallor imagery, as well as in the also non-bucolic fourteenth idyll, vv. 3 – 467; b) the sleeplessness of the lover due to his elegiac loss in v. 43 again: nec placido memini concedere somno, cf. Catul. 68a.5 – 6, Tib. 1.2.75 ff., 1.8.64, 2.4.11 – 2, Prop. 1.1.33, 1.3.39, 1.5.11, 1.16.39 – 40, 2.17.3 – 4, 2.25.47, Ov. Am. 1.2.1 – 4, Epist. 8.109, 11.29, 12.169 – 70 et al.68. This last motif significantly occurs in previous pastoral tradition only in the elegiac third Calpurnian eclogue v. 47: dum flet et excluso disperdit lumina somno, where Lycidas is presented as weeping all night, thus combining the motif of the elegiac sleeplessness with 62 Cf. Keene 1969, 172, Volpilhac 1975, 68, Pearce 1992, 45, Cupaiuolo 1997, 140. 63 Cf. Paladini 1956, 333, Keene 1969, 86. 64 Cf. also Pichon 1966, 134, Fey-Wickert 2002, 192. For domina as a clear elegiac term in Calp. 3.50, see also Paladini 1956, 332 – 3, Vinchesi 1991, 271, 1996, 37 – 8. 65 Cf. Vinchesi 1991, 270. 66 Cf. also Pichon 1966, 273, Fey-Wickert 2002, 192 – 3. 67 Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 140. 68 Cf. also Pichon 1966, 294, Korzeniewski 1976, 118, Vinchesi 1991, 269, Murgatroyd 1991, 251, Fey-Wickert 2002, 189 – 90. In Roman literature the motif also occurs in comedy (cf. Plaut. Merc. 25, Ter. Eun. 219) as well as in the (elegiac) fourth book of Vergil’s Aeneid, 4.5; but its most frequent appearance is in the elegiac corpus.

Idas’ Song

311

the equally elegiac topic of the tears over an erotic loss (here, Phyllis, after a long-standing relationship69). In Theocritus the motif does appear, but only in the non-bucolic tenth idyll, Theocr. 10.10, where the reaper Boukaios asks his fellow harvester Milon: oqdal\ mum sum]ba toi !cqupm/sai di’ 5qyta ; The inability of the lover to evaluate his surroundings properly, due to his erotic troubles, is a further motif of elegiac provenance, as in Ov. Am. 2.16.33 ff.70. Idas declares himself unable to see the white colour of the lilies, which he perceives as gray, because of the longing he feels for his absent sweetheart (v. 44: te sine, vae misero, mihi lilia fusca videntur). For him the roses are pale, the hyacinth does not have a sweet red blush, and the myrtle and the laurel have no fragrance (vv. 45 – 6). All this changes when the beloved comes back; the lover’s proper perception of the world is then reinstated, v. 47: at si tu venias…, where venire has the common elegiac meaning of ‘return / go to my beloved’71 and chiefly suggests the elegiac reconciliation after a separation. Nemesianus’ immediate intertext seems to be Calp. 3.51 – 4, where similarly Lycidas’ erotic distress accounts for his seeing the lilies as black, v. 51: te sine, vae misero, mihi lilia nigra videntur; the striking similarity of Calpurnius’ wording with Nemesianus’ line (with a single change of the Calpurnian nigra to Nemesianus’ fusca) demonstrates the Calpurnian passage as Nemesianus’ primary model72. But, whereas the Calpurnian Lycidas is also presented as hindered by his elegiac passion to enjoy the taste of the fountains and the sweetness of the wine (vv. 52 – 3), Nemesianus’ Idas is instead incapable to smell the fragrance of a favourite plant combination of Vergilian pastoral, myrtle and laurel, used in similar settings of erotic infatuation (Ecl. 2.54, 7.62, 6473), something which 69 Cf. Prop. 2.8.1 – 2, 2.16.54, Ov. Am. 1.7.15 – 6, 2.18.22; see also Pichon 1966, 151, 181 – 2. The tears of the lover, because of an unreciprocated love-affair, appear in the Theocritean corpus as well, though in the non-bucolic [Theocr.] 23.17: 5jkaie pot· stucmo?si lek\hqoir. 70 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 194. 71 Cf. Pichon 1966, 289. 72 For Calp. 3.51 – 4 as a model here, cf. also Duff and Duff 1934, 467, Verdière 1966, 180, Keene 1969, 173, Schetter 1975, 33 – 4, Volpilhac 1975, 68, Korzeniewski 1976, 31, Williams 1986, 136, Walter 1988, 39 and n.2, 40, Pearce 1992, 45 – 6, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 54, Amat 1995, 85 and n.5, Cupaiuolo 1997, 141, Hubbard 1998, 193, Vinchesi 1991, 271 and n.36, 1998, 140 – 1, Fey-Wickert 2002, 194. 73 Cf. Keene 1969, 173, Volpilhac 1975, 68, Korzeniewski 1976, 32, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 54. For the erotic connotations of Nemesianus’ flower combina-

312 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ again suggests the cumulative Roman pastoral tradition the poet has in his disposition74. A similar combination of Vergilian and Calpurnian elements is entailed by the grouping of the hyacinth75 and the roses76, also not properly perceived, in v. 45, i. e., yet another miscellany not found in the Calpurnian model. Idas closes his song with a reference to several members of the bucolic pantheon, relating what is most dear to each of them; the peculiar mention of the civic deity Pallas along with proper pastoral deities, such as Bacchus, Deo, i. e., Dg½ – Demeter77, Priapus and Pales (vv. 50 – 2), rather comes as a ‘generic surprise’. In the second Vergilian eclogue (vv. 60 – 2) Corydon clearly distinguishes between ‘pastoral space’ and its deities, on the one hand, and Pallas presiding over the urban citadels, on the other, vv. 61 – 2: Pallas, quas condidit arces, ipsa colat, the operosa Minerva alien to pastoral otium78 ; the association here of an urban goddess with a traditional bucolic pantheon may be read as a further indication of Nemesianus’ ‘departure’ from ‘previous pastoral correctness’. The reference to the urban Pallas may thus be seen as another sign of Nemesianus’ preference for elegy, a distinctly urban poetic genre, in fact the urban counterpart of pastoral within the ‘generic spectrum’ of the genus tenue. Similar urban associations will be found later at the end of Alcon’s song, thus giving the sense of a ring composition between the two performances (see below, p. 319). Idas’ final statement, v. 52: Idas te diligit unam, is also ‘unpastoral’, suggesting an elegiac bond of erotic exclusivity between the lover and the object of his love, in lieu of the polygamous sentiments of the pastoral lover. The elegiac lover often expresses the pleasure he derives from his relationship with one puella only (cf. Prop. 2.30b.23, see also Catul. 68b.135, Ov.

74 75

76 77 78

tions (myrtle – laurel, hyacinth – laurel), present in Vergil as well, see Hubbard 1998, 194 – 5 and n.78. Calp. 4.91: laurus… vicinaque nascitur arbos does not specifically mention myrtle as the companion of laurel, see also chapter 7, p. 261. Cf. Verg. Ecl. 3.62 – 3 (cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 68, Korzeniewski 1976, 32, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 54, Cupaiuolo 1997, 141), where the hyacinth is combined with the laurel as here and related to Apollo’s love-interests, 6.53. No instances appear, on the other hand, in the Calpurnian oeuvre. Present in the Calpurnian bucolics, 3.79, 6.43, yet absent from the Vergilian pastoral with the exception of a reference to a rosetum in 5.17. Cf. Keene 1969, 173, Volpilhac 1975, 50, Korzeniewski 1976, 119, Pearce 1992, 50, Cupaiuolo 1997, 143. Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 52 – 3.

Alcon’s Song

313

Ars 2.399)79. Similarly, Corydon of the second Vergilian eclogue proclaims his elegiac devotion to one beloved80, only to reject all elegiac dispositions and return to ‘pastoral rightness’ at the end of the poem; in v. 73 he ‘pulls himself together’ from a ‘generic point of view’ and thus decides to find another Alexis, if his boy keeps scorning him (invenies alium, si te hic fastidit, Alexin). In the same vein, Polyphemus of the eleventh Theocritean idyll adopts the proper bucolic attitude towards rejection in v. 76, when he comforts himself by the thought that: erqgse?r Cak\teiam Usyr ja· jakk_om’ %kkam, cf. also p. 103. The two songs are divided by a narrative distich (vv. 53 – 4) in imitation of Verg. Ecl. 8.62 – 381. The similar incipit (haec Idas – Nem. 1.53 / haec Damon – Verg. Ecl. 8.62) is followed in Nemesianus by calamis, something which leads to the realisation that it was not Idas himself who sung his own lyrics; instead, he accompanied the song with his flute, and both songs were probably sung by Alcon82. In opposition to the Vergilian fifth eclogue, where the initial distinction between song and flute-playing is not kept, Nemesianus’ pastoral characters remain faithful to their initial allotment of tasks. What is more, whereas in the Vergilian intertext of the eighth eclogue it is the Muses that are invoked to sing Alphesiboeus’ song, in Nemesianus it is Phoebus that supposedly resumes with Alcon’s performance.

Alcon’s Song In Alcon’s song, it is also not difficult to find plentiful indications of a ‘generic leaning’ towards elegy. Alcon also starts his song with an appeal to several pastoral gods, Pales, Apollo, Silvanus (vv. 55 – 6), adding Dione as the goddess protecting marriage83, vv. 57 – 8: cui cura iugales 79 Cf. Pichon 1966, 112. See also Vinchesi 1991, 264. 80 Cf. Papanghelis 1995, 61. 81 Cf. Keene 1969, 174, Volpilhac 1975, 50, Walter 1988, 37, 45, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 54, Cupaiuolo 1997, 143; see also Korzeniewski 1976, 33. 82 Idas must have been playing the flute during Alcon’s song as well, cf. also Hubbard 1998, 183. See, however, Walter 1988, 36 – 7. 83 Cf. also Walter 1988, 41: ‘Dione…als Hüterin der ehelichen Verbindungen der Menschen apostrophiert’, Pearce 1992, 51, Vinchesi 1998, 141. In v. 55: o montana Pales, o pastoralis Apollo, Walter 1988, 42 plausibly sees an allusion to Calp. 7.22: aut fecunda Pales aut pastoralis Apollo. The Calpurnian intertext points again to the pastoral character of this first part of the Nemesianian appeal, since

314 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ concubitus hominum totis conectere saeclis. However, marriage is not a traditional pastoral concern and all relevant instances in the Vergilian corpus have long been read as ‘unpastoral’ / rather elegiac intrusions (cf. chapter 3, pp. 133 – 5, 148 – 9); thus this invocation to a deity in her role of urban rather than pastoral concerns points again to Nemesianus’ replacing traditional pastoral values with urban ones. Alcon’s song continues (vv. 59 – 69) with the motif of the gifts: from the very first line of the gift account the elegiac colouring of Alcon’s affair becomes apparent, as the lover bewails his parting from Donace, v. 59: cur me Donace formosa reliquit? 84, a typical instance of elegiac separation from a beloved with whom one has an ongoing liaison. The presents that Alcon claims to have bestowed on her come from the animal world (a nightingale, v. 61: aedona 85, a little hare, v. 67: tenerum leporem and a couple of wood pigeons, v. 67: geminasque palumbes). Animals as erotic gifts are to be found in pastoral86, but only in the ‘generically dubious’ Theocr. 11.40 – 1, Verg. Ecl. 2.40 – 4, Calp. 3.76 – 85. Nevertheless, a distinct ‘elegiac outlook’ in the handling of the motif is discernible here: Alcon compares himself with Idas, who never managed to offer Donace so valuable presents, v. 60: munera namque dedi, noster quae non dedit Idas. Thus a rather elegiac triangle consisting in a lover, a sweetheart and a further suitor, the dives amator (in this case Alcon because of his gifts) is developed87. This harks back to the ‘elegiac

84

85 86 87

in Calp. 7 as well the invocation to these gods is viewed as part of a ‘traditional bucolic repertoire’ and is thus distinguished from Corydon’s discourse on urban matters (v. 18: quae spectavimus urbe) that Lycotas is eager to listen to. The rather ‘unpastoral’, on the other hand, reference to Dione as presiding over iuga celsa…Erycis (v. 57) led Wernsdorf to see in Alcon the persona of a Sicilian pastoral poet, cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 144; yet for a refutation of this thesis, cf. Cazzaniga 1954, 271 – 82 pointing out the motivistic character of the expression. Walter 1988, 42 sees in the quid merui? question preceding cur me Donace formosa reliquit? a further elegiac allusion to Prop. 1.18.9. However, the syntagm is quite common mainly in comedy (cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 119, Vinchesi 1998, 141), further suggesting a ‘comic’ / ‘elegiac (?) outlook’. Its other pastoral instance is Calp. 6.8, cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 68, Korzeniewski 1976, 34, Walter 1988, 42, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 55, Cupaiuolo 1997, 145, Vinchesi 1998, 141. Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 217. For the rather elegiac motif of the dives amator, cf. also Tib. 1.5.47 – 8, 1.6.53 – 4, 1.9.53, 2.3.59 – 60, Prop. 4.5, Ov. Am. 1.8.23, 3.8; see also in erotic lyric poetry, Catul. 69 and Hor. Epod. 11, 15. The motif is clearly anticipated in Roman comedy often foreshadowing later developments of the elegiac genus (Plaut. Curc. (Therapontigonus), Mil. (Pyrgopolynices), Pseud. (Polymachaero-

Alcon’s Song

315

leanings’ of Corydon in the second Vergilian eclogue, v. 57: nec, si muneribus certes, concedat Iollas, as well as to Lycidas’ also elegiac scorn for his rival Mopsus for being unable, due to his poverty, to offer Phyllis presents equal to his (Calp. 3.81 – 5). In any case, the combination of the hare with the wood pigeons indicates Calp. 3.76 – 8 as the primary intertext of Nemesianus’ passage in question, vv. 60 – 788, a model enhancing, because of its elegiac tone, the innovating ‘generic outlook’ of Nemesianus’ lines as well. What is more, although the palumbes do appear as erotic gifts in the pastoral tradition before Calpurnius and his mimesis by Nemesianus, cf. Theocr. 5.96 – 7, 133, Verg. Ecl. 3.68 – 989, the hare functions (along with the columbae) as a love-token, apart from the Calpurnian and the Nemesianian instance, only in the Ovidian epic, Ov. Met. 13.832 – 390. The association of this gift-grouping, of a ‘generic origin’ capitalizing on the ‘generic interaction’ of epic with pastoral and elegy (see above, p. 308), with the elegiac ungratefulness of the puella deserting her lover, in spite of his lavish presents (cf. Prop. 2.8.11; see also Ov. Epist. 7.27, 12.21, 20691), further increases the elegiac overtones of Nemesianus’ passage. This motif also appears in pastoral, yet in the elegiac third Calpurnian eclogue again, vv. 8 – 992, where Phyllis is characterised as ungrateful for leaving Lycidas for his rival Mopsus, after all the presents she had received from the former, amatque novum post tot mea munera Mopsum (v. 9). Likewise, Alcon wonders: v. 69: et post haec, Donace, nostros contemnis amores? 93. The elegiac pastoral intertext once again underlines elegiac tendencies of Nemesianus’ text.

88

89 90 91 92 93

plagides), Truc. (Stratophanes), Ter. Eun. (Thraso)); see especially Murgatroyd 1991, 178 and chapter 2, pp. 100 – 1. Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 68, Walter 1988, 42, Vinchesi 1991, 273 and n.40, 1998, 141, Pearce 1992, 51, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 55, Cupaiuolo 1997, 146, Fey-Wickert 2002, 218; the following quae potui (v. 68) of Nemes. 2 may also be read as referring to Verg Ecl. 3.70: quod potui, cf. also Hubbard 1998, 190 and n.73; see also Cupaiuolo 1997, 146. Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 34. Cf. also Fey-Wickert 2002, 218 – 9. Cf. also Pichon 1966, 169, Vinchesi 1991, 262, Fey-Wickert 2002, 156. Cf. also Keene 1969, 175, Volpilhac 1975, 51, Korzeniewski 1976, 34, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 56, Cupaiuolo 1997, 146, Fey-Wickert 2002, 153. Note here the same syntactic function of the post complement in both Calpurnius and Nemesianus, further suggesting the dependence of Nemesianus on the Calpurnian passage in question.

316 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ Alcon then endeavours to rationalise his abandonment by Donace; thus he ascribes their separation to the aversion that the puella feels for the pastoral occupation, the rusticitas of the lover vv. 70 – 1: quod rusticus Alcon te peream, qui mane boves in pascua duco, a topic occurring in the Theocritean corpus, in [Theocr.] 20.34 – 41 (see also [Theocr.] 8.52) 94. Thus, as a ‘protreptic to pastoral life’95, the lover resorts to the example of divine and mythical figures who have deigned to inhabit the woods and to occupy themselves with pasturing, vv. 72 – 3. Apart from [Theocritus] similar arguments in favour of a pastoral way of life are also to be found in Roman pastoral, in Calp. 2.60 – 1 (for the ‘generically diversifying character’ of this intertext see chapter 6, pp. 228 – 9) as well as in the second Vergilian eclogue (vv. 56 – 62) 96, where Corydon tries to make his beloved Alexis appreciate the pastoral world by pointing out the example of gods and heroes who have in the mythical past inhabited the ‘pastoral space’, vv. 60 – 1: habitarunt di quoque silvas Dardaniusque Paris. This statement, however, is uttered by Corydon in an elegiac disposition, before his final return to the ‘pastoral norm’; thus the elegised pastoral intertext once again gives an elegiac colouring to the new text of Nemesianus. The elegiac undertones of the intertext become even clearer in Nemesianus’ passage, since, unlike Corydon’s case, the urging here is addressed to a lover with whom the pastoral singer was previously involved, according to the elegiac ethos. Vergil’s gods are specified in the Nemesianian elaboration of the motif, as, in opposition to Vergil, Nemesianus gives the names of his deities: Apollo, Pan and Faunus, all belonging to the traditional pastoral pantheon. Paris, on the other hand, is crucially substituted by Adonis, i. e., an unequivocally pastoral figure mainly of post-Theocritean pastoral (Bion’s E.A., cf. also Theocr. 1.109 – 10), thus once again suggesting the wider range of pastoral intertexts that Nemesianus works with. Note however that Adonis is used as an example for adopting pastoral life crucially in the tenth eclogue97, i. e., in the poem also capitalizing on the ‘generic interrelation’ of elegy with pastoral as is the case with both Verg. Ecl. 2 and Nemes. 2 (cf. also Theocr. 1.109). In vv. 17 – 8 Adonis functions as a 94 Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 35, 146 – 7, Fey-Wickert 2002, 109. 95 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 191. See also Korzeniewski 1976, 120. 96 Cf. also Keene 1969, 175, Volpilhac 1975, 51, Korzeniewski 1976, 34, Walter 1988, 43 and n.1, Pearce 1992, 52, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 56, Cupaiuolo 1997, 35, 146, Hubbard 1998, 191, Vinchesi 1998, 142. 97 Cf. also Keene 1969, 176, Volpilhac 1975, 51, Pearce 1992, 52, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 56, Cupaiuolo 1997, 147, Hubbard 1998, 191.

Alcon’s Song

317

role-model for the elegiac Gallus, who is urged not to disdain pastoral life; the appeal is uttered when the poet’s unbearable elegiac passion needs to be relieved through the entry in the bucolic world and the adoption of its values. What follows is the motif of pastoral beauty in vv. 74 – 81; his reflection on the calm waters of a spring in the morning light and the admiring comments of both Donace and others make Alcon confident of his beauty; the motif evokes several pastoral texts from Theocritus onwards98, Theocr. 6.34 – 8, Verg. Ecl. 2.25 – 7, Calp. 2.84 – 91, 3.61 – 2. What is more, the last two Calpurnian intertexts seem to function as the direct models of Nemesianus’ formulation, as evidenced by the motif of beholding oneself during the weak light of an early morning99 in a spring rather in seawater (v. 74: quin etiam fontis speculo me mane notavi, cf. also Calp. 2.88: fontibus in liquidis quotiens me conspicor, vs. Theocr. 6.35, Verg. Ecl. 2.25 – 6100), the ideal of cheeks free of facial hair / a young man’s first fluff (v. 77: nulla tegimur lanugine malas, cf. Calp. 2.89 – 90: etenim sic flore iuventae induimur vultus), a pastoral attribute related to the young age of the singer101 (cf. also p. 139), and by the image of several people, including the beloved, asserting the lover’s beauty (vv. 78 – 9: nostro formosior Ida / dicor, et hoc ipsum mihi tu iurare solebas, cf. Calp. 3.61 – 2: formosior illo dicor, et hoc ipsum mihi tu iurare solebas 102). However, both intertexts suggest a ‘generic ambivalence’, as previously remarked, with the second Calpurnian eclogue diverging towards geor98 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 35, Walter 1988, 43 – 4, Pearce 1992, 53 – 4, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 56, Cupaiuolo 1997, 148, Fey-Wickert 2002, 201 – 2. 99 vv. 74 – 6; the image of the quivering light on the crystal waters (v. 76: nec tremulum liquidis lumen splenderet in undis) is close in formulation to Verg. A. 7.9: splendet tremulo sub lumine pontus (cf. Walter 1988, 44); if Verg. A. 7.9 is the intertext here, then it further enhances the feeling of ‘generic comprehensiveness / fluidity’ suggested throughout the present eclogue of Nemesianus. 100 Cf. Keene 1969, 176, Volpilhac 1975, 51, Walter 1988, 44, Vinchesi 1998, 142, Hubbard 1998, 192 and n.74 pointing out Servius’ (ad 2.25) reservations concerning Corydon’s problematic mirroring on the sea. For a possibly long debate between the grammarians, which resulted in Calpurnius’ changing to a spring mirroring, cf. also Hubaux 1930, 221, Fey-Wickert 2002, 130. 101 But formulated here (v. 77: lanugine malas) by means of epic intertexts, cf. Lucr. 5.889, Verg. A. 10.324, Ov. Met. 9.398, 12.291, 13.754, Walter 1988, 44, Cupaiuolo 1997, 149. 102 For the similarity of the wording, cf. especially Hubbard 1998, 192 and n.75. See also Volpilhac 1975, 68, Korzeniewski 1976, 35, Pearce 1992, 54, Cupaiuolo 1997, 149, Vinchesi 1998, 142.

318 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ gic and elegiac ideals (cf. chapter 6, pp. 213 ff.), whereas the third shows distinct ‘generic markers’ of the elegiac genre. This elegiac disruption becomes evident in Nemesianus’ eclogue (vv. 78 – 9: nostro formosior Ida dicor), since, in imitation of Calp. 3103 again, it further associates the motif of beauty with a ‘belittlement of the erotic rival’104, an ‘unpastoral’ motif associated with the well-known elegiac triangle consisting in two suitors courting the same lady. The final argument is the motif of the musical competence, vv. 82 – 7, the highest attribute in the bucolic value system; the motif as part of a lover’s self-praising does appear in previous pastoral, although, as it often happens with the intertexts of this eclogue, it occurs in passages of ‘generic ambivalence’, such as Theocr. 11.38 – 40 (cf. also 20.28 – 9), Verg. Ecl. 2.23 – 4; see also Calp. 3.59 – 60105. The overall ‘unpastoral’ feeling however is further augmented in the present eclogue by the association of the motif with a movement away from the countryside to the city, with a sense of a ‘generic transcendence’ towards the urbs and its poetic genres (i. e., elegy, epic, etc.). So, in imitation of Calp. 4.160 – 1106, a further intertext suggesting ‘generic versatility’ (cf. chapter 7, p. 273), Alcon gives emphasis to the city107: Vergil is praised not only as a pastoral poet, but on the basis of his ‘generic evolution’ towards the city genre, i. e., his epic, the Aeneid, v. 84: Tityrus e silvis dominam pervenit in urbem 108. The verse with which Alcon / Nemesianus109 expresses his willingness to be celebrated by the city and not the woods (the default pastoral 103 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 202. 104 Fey-Wickert 2002, 183: ‘Herabsetzung des Nebenbuhlers’. 105 For the references, cf. also Cupaiuolo 1997, 149 – 50, Fey-Wickert 2002, 197 – 8. 106 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 68, Küppers 1989, 44, Cupaiuolo 1997, 150, Vinchesi 1998, 142 – 3. 107 By alluding to the very same Calpurnian intertext, Tityrus of the first pastoral of Nemesianus, symbolising pastoral tradition, gives the younger Timetas, as the representative of the ‘pastoral succession’, a similar wish, i. e., Apollo to lead him dominam…in urbem (v. 83); such a wish also suggests a ‘generic transcendence’ of Nemesianus’ pastoral towards the city and its poetic ideals; cf. also Hubbard 1998, 182, Vinchesi 1998, 143 and n.39. See also Cupaiuolo 1997, 22, Fey-Wickert 2002, 164. 108 For Tityrus = Vergil here, cf. also Keene 1969, 177, Volpilhac 1975, 68, Korzeniewski 1976, 121, Pearce 1992, 55. 109 For a poetic credo of Nemesianus’ here, cf. Volpilhac 1975, 69, Walter 1988, 45 vs. Cupaiuolo 1997, 150.

Conclusion

319

location), v. 85: nos quoque te propter, Donace, cantabimur urbi, alludes to an elegiac (thus urban) line (Ov. Am. 1.3.25: nos quoque per totum pariter cantabimur orbem) 110. Besides, the image he uses to back up his aspirations, that of cones-bearing cypress bursting into leaf amid osiers (v. 86: si modo coniferas inter viburna1 cupressos2), has its immediate pastoral model in Verg. Ecl. 1.25: quantum lenta solent inter viburna1 cupressi2,111 symbolising again the urbs (i. e., Rome) that Tityrus recently visited. Once again, the reader is faced with a motif occurring in the previous pastoral tradition, but drawn on contexts of ‘ambiguous generic identity’ and further ‘de-pastoralised’ by Nemesianus. What is more, the city concerns expressed here hark back to similar preoccupations at the end of Idas’ song, establishing a kind of ring composition, as suggested at the closure of the previous canticum, cf. p. 312. The eclogue closes with a further narrative wedge commenting on the ending of the song exchange, vv. 88 – 90. A traditional pastoral closure appears with the Vergilian coming of the evening (vv. 89 – 90: frigidus…Hesperus), resulting in the resuming of menial pastoral activities (v. 90: stabulis pastos inducere tauros, cf. chapter 7, pp. 274 – 5) 112. But for all its ‘pastoral correctness’ at the end, the overall sense that the reading of the poem creates is that of a ‘generic alienation’ from traditional ‘pastoral norms’ towards the elegiac genus. Both singers hope to alleviate their elegiac passion by singing of their erotic troubles, thus finding the antidote to this elegiac distress of theirs in pastoral song; yet as in the case of the elegiac Gallus in Verg. Ecl. 10, the pastoral palliative eventually proves insufficient: elegiac passion seems finally to prevail.

Conclusion Pastoral vs. elegy constitutes the main ‘generic focus’ of the present eclogue. Nemesianus incorporates into his pastoral several conspicuous elegiac topics (e. g. the clausa puella motif). More often, he elaborates on a topic having pastoral parallels, but of ‘ambiguous generic caliber’. Thus 110 Cf. Keene 1969, 177, Walter 1988, 44 – 5, Vinchesi 1998, 143. 111 Cf. Keene 1969, 177, Volpilhac 1975, 69, Williams 1986, 139, Walter 1988, 45, Pearce 1992, 55, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 57, 68, Cupaiuolo 1997, 150, Vinchesi 1998, 143. 112 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 121, Walter 1988, 37, Stanzel 1989, 201 and n.44, Pearce 1992, 56, Cupaiuolo 1997, 22 – 4, 151, Vinchesi 1998, 143, Fey-Wickert 2002, 134 – 5.

320 Elegiac vs. Pastoral Again: Reading the Second Eclogue of Nemesianus’ most of his pastoral intertexts derive from bucolic works which develop a certain ‘elegiac discourse’, or in any case exhibit somehow ‘unpastoral’ qualities, mainly Theocr. 11, Verg. Ecl. 2, Calp. 3. ‘Generic fluidity’ is further suggested through the particular way various otherwise pastoral topics are being handled in the present eclogue, as happens for example with the motif of musical competence as part of a lover’s self-praise. In the same vein, several motifs come from the oeuvre of a bucolic poet, but not from his bucolic poems, such as the flower gathering motif leading to the violation of the puella. All these techniques secure a sense of ‘generic novelty’. In doing so, Nemesianus proves himself capable of exploiting the whole of the pastoral tradition before him, often combining motifs from more than one source in such a way as to suggest his ‘innovative generic orientation’, as for example in the case of the motif of the erotic gifts; nonetheless, one should distinguish between Calpurnius and Nemesianus, as Calpurnian pastoral and even the Einsiedeln Eclogues exhibit their own ‘novel generic aspirations’ in a more straightforward and decisive manner (cf. also introduction, p. 49). On the level of poetological meta-language, neoteric slogan words frequently recur in Nemesianus’ text, but, as with his predecessor Calpurnius, Nemesianus’ ‘generic experimentation’ often ‘put these terms at risk’ (cf. vv. 33 – 4). Nonetheless, it should also be remembered that ‘failure of song’, i. e., the main focus of the present bucolic poem, is already thematised in Vergil; thus a ‘song about the failure of song’ is a typically bucolic theme, which eventually seems to confirm that what is ultimately important is the ongoing process of song-making and song-enjoyment. Against this background, both the ‘pastoral dislocation’ and the ‘elegiac turn’, discerned in the present eclogue, appear to be part of the evolving history of the pastoral genre as ‘pure’ song (a ‘song about songs’), thus ensuring the survival of pastoral, although in altered generic forms, through time.

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue Nemesianus’ fourth bucolic poem can also be integrated in the established pattern of a ‘generic interaction’ between pastoral and elegy. Two shepherds, Lycidas and Mopsus, following the time-honoured tradition, meet under the shade of a tree, v. 1, in order to exchange songs. But although their songs are indubitably pastoral, in the sense that they formally belong to the bucolic genre as parts of the same pastoral text, the elegiac modal sub-genre constitutes a strong undercurrent, which eventually gains the upper hand. The present poem follows a pattern already encountered in the second eclogue of Nemesianus: the two singers choose topics which often have parallels in the work of a Greek pastoral poet, but not in his bucolic poems, or in a pastoral poem of a ‘generically dubious’ character. Alternatively, the topics may reappear in Roman pastoral in contexts where a clear ‘elegiac discourse’ runs through the bucolic text, or the majority of the instances of the motifs in Roman literature appear in the elegiac genre. The wording of the eclogue often speaks volumes for this ‘generic leaning’ towards the elegiac genus.

The Narrative Framing This ‘generic tension’ is anticipated from the narrative frame introducing the eclogue, as already the first line modifies up to a point an otherwise traditional bucolic facade, thus revealing, according to the Hellenistic ethos, the poet’s ‘generic intentions’ from his very first words. The two singers are depicted as pastores (v. 2), i. e., as default inhabitants of the ‘green cabinet’ and the bucolic genre; they are even presented through an established pastoral formulation, involving the pronoun uterque (v. 2: calamis ac versu doctus uterque, cf. also [Theocr.] 8.3 – 4, Verg. Ecl. 7.4 – 5, Calp. 2.3 – 4, Nemes. 2.16 – 7, see also chapters 6, 9, pp. 214, 302 – 31), as skilled in both pipe-playing and verse. But the tree that overshadows their poetic efforts is the poplar (v. 1: populea…in 1

Cf. also Walter 1988, 70 and n.3, Hubbard 1998, 197 – 8.

322

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

umbra), which, as a shadowy tree associated with (sorrowful) song, originates not in Vergilian pastoral but in Vergilian Georgics (G. 4.511: qualis populea maerens philomela sub umbra) 2. What is more, the external narrator informs the reader that the love-song the two singers perform is nec triviale (v. 3: nec triviale sonans). The same qualification also appears in Calpurnian pastoral3, significantly with a clear programmatic semantic load: in Calp. 1.28 – 9 Corydon’s brother, Ornytus, uses a similar wording in order to distinguish Faunus’ prophecy, which is inscribed on a beech tree and has not a whiff of the pastoral world in it (vv. 29 – 30: nihil armentale resultat, nec montana sacros distinguunt iubila versus), from ‘traditional pastoral’, which is inscribed by a bona fide pastoral character, a pastor, significantly triviali more (v. 28) 4. The second half-line further specifies the ‘generic outlook’ of the songs to follow, as the singers are presented as having sung proprios…amores (v. 3); amores may not simply denote the shepherd’s erotic stories5 but also, as a technical term demarcating love elegy as a genre6, it emphasises the ‘elegiac outlook’ of the poem (cf. also Ov. Epist. 15.155, Rem. 379) 7. The pastoral intertexts of this usage betray the same ‘generic tension’ between pastoral and elegy that is discernible in the present eclogue of Nemesianus as well: amores in this ‘generic sense’ also appears in Vergilian pastoral, crucially in the tenth eclogue, where a similar ‘generic interaction’ (elegy vs. pastoral) has long been discerned (cf. introduction, pp. 34 – 5; see also p. 297), cf. Verg. Ecl. 10.6: sollicitos Galli dicamus amores, 34, 53 – 4. The term is here used of the elegiac passion / poetry of the elegiac poet Gallus transported, although briefly and unsuccessfully, into the ‘pastoral realm’8 ; likewise, the amores of the present 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 57, Korzeniewski 1976, 46, Walter 1988, 70, Cupaiuolo 1997, 178, Hubbard 1998, 197. Cf. Keene 1969, 189, Volpilhac 1975, 57, Korzeniewski 1976, 46, Walter 1988, 70, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 101, Cupaiuolo 1997, 178, Hubbard 1998, 198 and n.84. triviale more is associated with both a shepherd and a traveler (v. 28: non pastor, non haec triviali more viator); cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 221: ‘there be no verses in wayside style by shepherd or by traveller’. See also Martin 2003, 77. Cf. also Walter 1988, 71. Cf. also Harrison 2007, 63. Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 46. A similar ‘elegiac instance’ also occurs in the eighth Vergilian eclogue (cf. also chapter 3, pp. 125 ff.), where in vv. 22 – 3: Maenalus argutumque nemus pinosque loquentis / semper habet, semper pastorum ille audit amores, the word amores may also denote love-song. Calpurnian pastoral offers the parallel of 6.74: nam vicibus

The Narrative Framing

323

eclogue may be viewed as elegiac ‘generic intrusions’ into the pastoral genre. Mopsus expresses his infatuation for a puella only, Meroe, whereas Lycidas sings exclusively of his love for a puer, Iollas (v. 5: parilisque furor de dispare sexu). This may be a playful variation on the pastoral characters’ expressed and ‘canonical’ alternation between the two sexes9. Thus lines 4 – 5 provide the reader with the names of the shepherds’ darlings, nam Mopso Meroe, Lycidae crinitus (i. e., a puer delicatus10) Iollas ignis erat. Ignis is, however, used here in the sense of ‘beloved’, ‘darling’, persona amata, a linguistic option frequent in the elegiac genre (cf. Ov. Am. 2.16.11, 3.9.56, Epist. 16.104, 18.85, Hor. Epod. 14.13 – 5) 11. The passion experienced by the two singers is significantly described as furor, another common elegiac erotic term (cf. e. g. Catul. 68b.129, Prop. 1.1.7, Ov. Am. 1.2.35, etc.12). This linguistic usage is unknown to Roman pastoral, with the exception of two instances, in Verg. Ecl. 10.38, 60, i. e., in the eclogue dealing with the ‘generic interaction’ of elegy with pastoral. In fact, the second of these instances significantly describes as furor the elegiac passion that the poet Gallus tries to eradicate through his entry in the pastoral world, v. 60: tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris (cf. also

9

10 11

12

teneros malim cantetis amores, (cf. Volpilhac 1975, 57, Korzeniewski 1976, 46, Cupaiuolo 1997, 178) i. e., of yet another bucolic aiming to ‘transcend’ ‘traditional pastoral’ by twisting long-established boujokiasl¹r patterns. Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 196. Although emphasis on a homosexual relationship does occasionally appear in pastoral (cf. Theocr. 7.96 – 108; see also chapter 2, pp. 96 – 7), in most cases it functions within a setting of an acceptable (generic) bisexuality, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 2.14 – 6, 3, 7, 10.37 – 41, Calp. 6.86. For Astylus of the sixth Calpurnian eclogue being in love with both female (Acanthis, Petale) and male lovers (Mopsus), cf. White 1999, 150 – 1. Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 129. Cf. Pichon 1966, 166, Volpilhac 1975, 70, Korzeniewski 1976, 46, McKeown 1998, 338, Williams 1986, 151. A similar usage appears in the third Vergilian eclogue, where a similar elegiac intrusion has long been observed and also previously commented upon, v. 66: at mihi sese offert ultro, meus ignis, Amyntas, cf. also above pp. 113 – 4, Schöpsdau 1974, 268 – 300; for this Vergilian instance, cf. also Keene 1969, 189, Volpilhac 1975, 57, Korzeniewski 1976, 46, Cupaiuolo 1997, 179. In Verg. Ecl. 5.10: Phyllidis ignes the word is simply equivalent to amor. Cf. also Ter. Eun. 85, i. e., in a comedy, and, what is more, in its first act (I), where several later elegiac developments appear in concentration; see Barsby 1999, 90 – 1, 92, 93, 96; cf. also pp. 100 – 1, 102, 118, 124 and passim. Cf. also Pichon 1966, 158.

324

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

chapter 9, p. 30513). Erotic passion leads the two singers of the present eclogue of Nemesianus to another elegiac habit, that of wandering through the woods (v. 6: trepidos totis discurrere silvis). The Waldeinsamkeit motif occurs in elegy (cf. Prop. 1.1.9 – 14) and significantly in the elegiac mode of Vergil’s tenth eclogue, where the elegiac poet Gallus again declares his intention to suffer his passion v. 52: in silvis, inter spelaea ferarum, combining his wanderings, cf. also vv. 55 ff., with a further elegiac motif, that of inscribing love-songs on the bark of a tree (vv. 53 – 4: tenerisque meos incidere amores arboribus 14). The following line (v. 7), where Meroe and Iollas are depicted as mocking the two shepherds, crucially described again as furentes, can also receive a similar interpretation. Furere in relation to the erotic passion of a lover has many parallels in the elegiac corpus, cf. e. g. Tib. 1.6.73 – 4, Prop. 4.8.52, Ov. Am. 1.7.2 – 315, etc., but is unparalleled in Roman pastoral, where it occurs once at Eins. 1.25, but with reference to a prophetess’s raving (virgo furit et canit ore coacto) and once again at Calp. 6.89: quid furitis, quo vos insania tendere iussit?, in the sense of ‘to storm at each other’16. The same holds true for lusere (v. 7) in the sense of ‘deceive’, ‘mock’ used of the elegiac beloved: again one comes across several parallels from the elegiac corpus (cf. Tib. 1.8.71, Prop. 4.1b.14017) in opposition to the pastoral genre, where no similar instances are to be found18. Meroe and Iollas, we are told, avoid all woodland places where they potentially could meet their suitors, such as valley elms (v. 8: vitant in vallibus ulmos), beech trees (v. 9: nunc fagos placitas fugiunt), caves (vv. 9 – 10: promissaque fallunt antra) and springs (v. 10: nec est animus solitos alludere fontes). But the places they shun are strongly associated with the bucolic genre, to the extent of occasionally standing as its meta-lin-

13 Cf. also Effe – Binder 1989, 109. 14 For the elegiac character of these motifs, cf. Papanghelis 1995, 79 – 82; see also chapter 3, p. 149; see also pp. 180 – 1. 15 Cf. Pichon 1966, 158. 16 Cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 277. 17 Cf. Pichon 1966, 192. 18 At Verg. Ecl. 1.10, Calp. 4.21 the verb is used in the sense of ‘play (a musical organ)’, at Verg. Ecl. 6.1, 28, Calp. 2.33 as equivalent to ‘to sport’, at Verg. Ecl. 6.19 with the meaning of ‘cheat from a promised song’.

The Narrative Framing

325

guistic symbols as well19. Elms frequently appear in the pastoral tradition (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.58, 2.70, 5.3, 10.67, Eins. 2.19, Calp. 2.59, 3.14), and so do beech trees (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.1, 2.3, 3.12, 5.13, 9.9, Calp. 1.11, 20, 2.59, 4.35, 7.5) which, in addition, stand as the emblematic tree of Vergilian pastoral (cf. chapter 5, p. 18920). The antrum, apart from its function as Amaryllis’ habitat in the Theocritean corpus (cf. Id. 3.621), also serves as the locus of pastoral poetic inspiration in Verg. Ecl. 5 and 6. In Verg. Ecl. 5 it is in the antrum that the genesis of a new pastoral tradition takes place (cf. chapter 4, pp. 153 ff.) and in Verg. Ecl. 6 it is also in a cave that Silenus gives the poetic history of Roman Callimacheanism. Similarly, it is in the cave of Faunus that Corydon and Ornytus of the first programmatic Calpurnian pastoral read out the prophecy of the god, which sets out the basic ‘generic features’ of the encomiastic imperial pastoral of Calpurnius. Finally, the spring, apart from its function, along with the cave, as a traditional place of poetic inspiration (cf. chapter 1, p. 72), also constitutes a noticeable element of the pastoral locus amoenus (cf. e. g. Verg. Ecl. 1.39, 52). Therefore, Meroe’s and Iollas’ avoidance of all these ‘generic constituents’ of pastoral may also be read as a certain willingness for ‘transcending’ ‘traditional pastoral’ towards other ‘generic directions’. This reading may also be backed up by the adjective qualifying fontes, solitos (v. 10), which harks back, albeit in a variant form, to the programmatic flumina nota of Verg. Ecl. 1.51; the Vergilian line suggests the ‘pastoral space’ as well as the pastoral genre that Tityrus is blessed to hold on, in opposition to Meliboeus who is evicted by both of them, cf. pp. 224 and n.45, 240 – 1; Meroe and Iollas thus willingly put themselves in Meliboeus’ shoes away from the sought after, well-known pastoral springs. The narrative introduction closes (cf. vv. 11 – 3) with a reference to the song of the two shepherds, structured according to the pastoral conventional pattern of alternated song performances (v. 13: in...vicem), yet in an ‘unpastoral’ setting, as suggested by the image of the solitary woods (v. 12: desertis…silvis), which contrast with the default lively pastoral countryside (cf. also chapter 7, pp. 265 – 6; see also pp. 235, 26322). 19 Walter 1988, 72 speaks about ‘ein Bild der bukolischen Landschaft…ein locus amoenus kurzum’; yet, as often remarked, cf. e. g. p. 16, the pastoral locus amoenus constitutes a basic ‘generic marker’ of the bucolic genre. 20 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 49 and n.11, 156. 21 Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 129. An antrum is also Donace’s tryst place in Nemes. 2.26: consueto…sub antro; see also Cupaiuolo 1997, 179. 22 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 129, Cupaiuolo 1997, 179.

326

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

The singers’ disposition is unequivocally elegiac, as they are being consumed by the fires of eros (cf. v. 11: dirus adederat ignis – note here once again the use of ignis of the unreciprocated erotic passion, cf. also above p. 323, as well as the elegiac expression ignis adedere, cf. Prop. 4.7.9, Ov. Am. 1.15.4123), and are involved in querellas (v. 13), a term also often functioning as a meta-linguistic sign of the elegiac genre (cf. also previous chapter, p. 302; see also p. 133).

The Song Exchange Mopsus starts the song exchange by appealing to the immitis Meroe (v. 14), depicted as more swift that the east wind (v. 14: rapidis…fugacior Euris). The image suggests the idea of the varium et mutabile semper femina (cf. Verg. A. 4.569 – 70), a literary topos (la donna e mobile!), also attested in Calp. 3.10. Iollas, in the Calpurnian instance, utters this maxim with reference to Phyllis’ rejection of Lycidas in favour of his erotic rival, Mopsus. Crucially, this pastoral intertext is once again ‘generically innovative’, as it constitutes an obvious elegiac intrusion into the pastoral genre, as fully developed in the previous chapter, cf. p. 301. What is more, the very idea of an elusive puella suggests the well-known elegiac topos of the puella’s fickleness, cf. e. g. Prop. 2.9.31 – 6, occasionally likened to the wind, cf. also Catul. 70.3 – 424. The pastoral intertext of the following lines is once again of elegiac colouring: Mopsus asks Meroe the reasons for her disdain of his pastoral songs, vv. 15 – 6: cur nostros calamos, cur pastoralia vitas carmina?. This evokes Corydon’s ‘elegiac slip’ when asking his urban beloved, Verg. Ecl. 2.6: nihil mea carmina curas? 25. However, in opposition to the Vergilian intertext, Nemesianus’ variant specifically mentions the pastoral character of the song that Meroe dislikes, through the term calamos, often associated with bucolic poetry (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.10, 2.32, 34, 5.2, 48, 8.24, Eins. 1.4, Calp. 1.16 – 7, 3.26, 58, 4.19 – 20, 23, 59, 76, 131, 6.10, 20), and the explicit formulation pastoralia carmina. This elegiac / pastoral intertext is complemented by another common elegiac 23 Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 179. 24 Cf. Fey-Wickert 2002, 156 – 7. See also Friedrich 1976, 77, Walter 1988, 73, Vinchesi 1991, 262 – 3 and n.14, Ov. Epist. 5.109 – 10, 6.109. 25 Cf. also Hubbard 1998, 199.

The Song Exchange

327

picture, that of the puella shunning her suitor, expressed with the verb fugio, v. 16: quemne fugis?, common in similar elegiac situations, cf. Catul. 8.10, 37.11, Tib. 1.9.74, Ov. Am. 1.13.37, 2.19.36, 3.11b.37, Epist. 2.81, Ars 1.71726. This mainly elegiac usage of the verb has a few pastoral parallels, but always in contexts of modal elegiac intrusion. The pastoral models for Nemes. 4.16 seem to be once again Verg. Ecl. 2.60: quem fugis, a demens? 27, uttered by Corydon in his ‘elegiac discourse’, and Calp. 3.61: quem sequeris? quem, Phylli, fugis? 28 by the also elegiac Lycidas in reclaiming his sweetheart Phyllis. The more distant Theocritean intertext, Id. 11.7529, also stands, as often previously remarked (cf. especially chapter 5, p. 200), outside the main Theocritean bucolic tradition. The following statement, v. 16: quae me tibi gloria victo?, is modeled on Tib. 1.8.49: puero quae gloria victo est? 30. It introduces the theme of the puella portrayed as a military conqueror with her lover as the defeated enemy, within the framework of the well-known elegiac motif of the militia amoris 31. The military imagery, where erotic success is described as gloria, has many elegiac parallels, but none from the pastoral genre, cf. also Prop. 2.21.9, Ov. Am. 2.12.11 – 2, Epist. 21.117, Ars 2.39032. This largely elegiac picture is further complemented with an epic allusion in v. 17: quid vultu mentem premis ac spem fronte serenas?, namely Verg. A. 4.477: consilium vultu tegit ac spem fronte serenat 33, an epic intertext crucially occurring in the fourth book of the Aeneid, i. e., in the love-story of Dido and Aeneas, which also sort of approximates elegiac situations. Dido is here presented as concealing her plan to commit suicide, a common elegiac appeal34, because of her erotic disillusionment (cf. chapters 6, 9, pp. 226 and n.52, 310 and n.68). 26 Cf. Pichon 1966, 157. 27 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 58, Walter 1988, 73, Hubbard 1998, 199. 28 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 58, Korzeniewski 1976, 47, Walter 1988, 73, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 102, Cupaiuolo 1997, 180, Hubbard 1998, 199 and n.86, Fey-Wickert 2002, 203. 29 Cf. also Walter 1988, 73. 30 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 47, Volpilhac 1975, 58, Williams 1986, 153, Walter 1988, 73 – 4, Cupaiuolo 1997, 180. 31 Cf. Murgatroyd 1991, 247. 32 Cf. Pichon 1966, 160, Maltby 2002, 315. 33 Cf. Keene 1969, 190, Volpilhac 1975, 58, Korzeniewski 1976, 48, Walter 1988, 74, Pearce 1992, 81, Cupaiuolo 1997, 180, Hubbard 1998, 199. 34 Cf. also Vinchesi 1991, 274. Other common elegiac motifs that Nemes. 4 shares with the fourth book of the Aeneid are the following: the fire of love imagery,

328

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

The first part of Mopsus’ performance closes with yet another elegiac catchword, the qualification of the elegiac mistress as dura, i. e., amorem respuens neque precibus commota 35 ; cf. e. g. Tib. 1.8.50, Prop. 1.1.10, Ov. Am. 1.9.19, etc. and the very same combination of dura, nega (v. 18) at Prop. 2.22b.4336. The song ends with a refrain, as in the first and second Theocritean idyll, [Moschus] 3, E.A. and the eighth Vergilian eclogue37. The refrain (versus intercalaris 38) concerns the ability of song to relieve the pangs of love (v. 19: levant et carmina curas), a view that has its pastoral origin in the framing narrative of the eleventh Theocritean idyll (cf. also Bion fr. 3, see also p. 30139). However, although at the end of the Greek intertext, Polyphemus does succeed in alleviating his erotic pain through song, this is not the case with the herdsmen of the present eclogue, who reaffirm their passion at the closure of their songs. In this they resemble Gallus of the tenth Vergilian eclogue, as well as Idas and Alcon of the second Nemesinian eclogue, also failing to find remedy for their passion in pastoral singing. A similar ‘generic pattern’ may be discerned in Lycidas’ response: a Theocritean intertext of a non-bucolic character is associated with a Roman pastoral intertext comprising a discourse of elegiac type, and is complemented by topics and wording associated in Roman literature mainly with the elegiac genre. The priamel in vv. 21 – 4, drawing a parallel between the loss of bloom in plants and the ephemeral human beauty (a further elegiac topos40), evokes the non-bucolic Id. 23.28 ff. of the Theocritean corpus41. Once more, as elsewhere in Nemesianus,

35 36 37 38 39 40 41

v. 11, cf. also Verg. A. 4.2, 66, and the use of fugio in v. 16: quemne fugis?, cf. also Verg. A. 4.314, in its common elegiac sense ‘flee from love’; see also Korzeniewski 1976, 47. Formulation following Pichon 1966, 136. See also McKeown 1989, 267, Murgatroyd 1991, 247. Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 180. Cf. Rosenmeyer 1969, 94 – 7, Korzeniewski 1976, 129 – 30, Pearce 1992, 81 – 2. Cf. Walter 1988, 74 and n.4, Cupaiuolo 1997, 180, Hubbard 1998, 198 – 9. Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 48, Walter 1988, 72. Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 130. Cf. Keene 1969, 191, Korzeniewski 1976, 49, Walter 1988, 76, Cupaiuolo 1997, 181, Hubbard 1998, 199 – 200 and n.87, who sees also an influence of Tib. 1.4.29 – 30 as to ‘the flowery fields and [the] leafy poplar’ of Nemesianus’ passage.

The Song Exchange

329

cf. e. g. pp. 310 – 1, a non-bucolic idyll42 is combined with an elegiac quotation: according to Castagna 1970, 416 – 8, Nemesianus combines here the non-pastoral pseudotheocritean model with a passage from Ov. Ars 2.113 – 643. Nemesianus’ own addition, v. 23: nec longum tenet uva comas nec populus umbras, further emphasises the notion of ‘unpastoral’, as it suggests the loss of the pastoral shade, indispensable in the genre as one of its basic ‘generic markers’ (cf. chapter 5, p. 204) 44. A further pastoral intertext, yet once again of elegiac sensibilities, is also suggested by the address – crudelis Lycidas uses in v. 20: puer o crudelis Iolla modeled on Verg. Ecl. 2.6: o crudelis Alexi 45 ; a further similar instance of the adjective, in relation to love again, appears significantly in the elegiac intrusion of the tenth Vergilian eclogue as well, 10.29: crudelis Amor46. The sermo amatorius, on the other hand, also exhibits several cases, where the adjective is used in the sense of amans quem amantis non miseret 47, cf. e. g. [Tib.] 3.4.61, Prop. 1.8a.16 et al. Mopsus too continues with a similar ‘generic pattern’: he states the general truth that all nature succumbs to love, developing this theme by means of the priamel form once again, common in the bucolic genre as one of its stylistic ‘generic markers’48. However, the priamel series he chooses, an account of animal life in love (vv. 26 – 8), has its Theocritean parallel in the tenth idyll, vv. 30 – 149, and so in a poem not belonging to the close circle of Theocritean bucolic idylls. A similar priamel series employed in order to gain a lover’s favours is found in the second Vergilian pastoral, in vv. 63 – 5, where Corydon, in his elegiac disposition, compares his pursuit of Alexis with examples drawn from animal life: torva leaena lupum sequitur, lupus ipse capellam, / florentem cytisum se42 Mainly the rose and the white colour of the lilies present in both Theocritus and Nemesianus. Similar is also the last generalising gnomic, Nem. 4.24 = [Theocr.] 23.32. 43 Cf. also Walter 1988, 75 and n.1, Cupaiuolo 1997, 181. 44 Vs. Walter 1988, 76 – 7, who sees here ‘etwas bukolisches Kolorit’. 45 Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 49, Walter 1988, 75, Hubbard 1998, 199. 46 Other instances of the adjective in the Vergilian pastoral corpus, yet not associated with the disdain of a beloved, are the following: Verg. Ecl. 5.20, 23, 8.48 – 9, 50. 47 As formulates Pichon 1966, 117. 48 Cf. Rosenmeyer 1969, 257 – 61, Bernsdorff 1996, 77 – 8, 2006, 180, Reed 1997, 189; see also introduction, pp. 20, 24, 32. 49 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 24, Korzeniewski 1976, 49, Walter 1988, 77 and n.2, 78, Cupaiuolo 1997, 181.

330

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

quitur lasciva puella, / te Corydon, o Alexi 50. Various details in the formulation or the wording of Nemesianus’ priamel further point to its ‘elegiac inclination’. Thus the first syntagm of the series (v. 26: cerva marem sequitur) is modeled on Ov. Ars 2.483: cerva parem sequitur 51, the combination of the heifer and the bull in an erotic context harks back to the previous elegiac intertext as well, Ov. Ars 2.485: tauro quoque laeta iuvenca est 52, whereas v. 29: suos habet arbor amores echoes Prop. 1.18.19: si quos habet arbor amores53. The last line before the refrain, v. 30: tu tamen una fugis, miserum tu prodis amantem, contains the previously discussed chiefly elegiac use of fugio as an equivalent to ‘flee from love’54, cf. pp. 326 – 7, as well as prodo with erotic connotations, unparalleled in the Roman bucolic corpus, but well-attested in cases like Prop. 2.7.1055. Lycidas’ pederastic reply comes back to the issue of ‘temporality’56, the quick passing of time in relation to the short-lived enjoyment of pederastic love-affairs. Iollas is presented at the end of the pederastic age, twenty years old (v. 36: iam tibi bis denis numerantur messibus anni 57), and already showing the first signs of maturity, with his swelling nostrils and strong neck (vv. 35 – 6). The motif has again a (pseudo)-Theocritean pedigree, namely Id. 23.32: ja· j\kkor jak|m 1sti t¹ paidij|m, !kk’ ak_com f0 (as in Lycidas’ previous singing part, see also Id. 29.25 – 3458). The notion of the fleeting beauty of the eromenos, 50 Cf. also Verdière 1966, 182, Keene 1969, 191, Volpilhac 1975, 59, Williams 1986, 155, Walter 1988, 78, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 103, Cupaiuolo 1997, 181 – 2, Hubbard 1998, 200. Corydon’s words are complemented with further linguistic markers of the elegiac genre, namely the use of fugio in v. 60 in its common elegiac sense ab amatore me amovere. 51 Cf. Walter 1988, 77. 52 Cf. Walter 1988, 77 – 8. 53 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 26, 59, Korzeniewski 1976, 49, Williams 1986, 154 – 5, Walter 1988, 78. For a conflation of Prop. 1.18.19 and Ov. Ars 2.477 – 88 in Mopsus’ priamel, see also Verdière 1966, 182 – 3. 54 Cf. Duff and Duff 1934, 481. See also Volpilhac 1975, 59. 55 Cf. Pichon 1966, 240 – 1. 56 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 200. See also Korzeniewski 1976, 130, Pearce 1992, 83, Walter 1988, 79. 57 Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 115 read in the above designation of the age by means of messis a trait ‘più ‘georgico’ che ‘bucolico’’. 58 The case of Theocr. 7.120 – 1 is slightly different, since the expression ‘riper than a pear’ is not clearly associated with the loss of the pederastic beauty motif, but instead seems to suggest sexual promiscuity on Philinos’ part (cf. Hunter 1999, 188); in any case the passing away of Philinos’ good looks

The Song Exchange

331

of the pederastic pleasures broken off at the first signs of manhood, may also lie behind Corydon’s admonition at Verg. Ecl. 2.17: o formose puer, nimium ne crede colori 59. The theme of ‘erotic temporality’ and decay of beauty, common in the Greek epigram, especially in its association with the love for boys60, has a long history in Roman literature, mainly in the elegiac genre, cf. e. g. Tib. 1.4.27 – 8, 1.8.47 – 8, Prop. 4.5.59 – 60, Ov. Am. 1.8.49 – 50, Ars 2.113 – 4, 3.6561. The elegiac wording of vv. 33 – 4: vidi…istos, / qui nunc pro nivea coiere in cornua vacca, modeled in all probability on Ov. Am. 2.12.25: vidi ego pro nivea pugnantes coniuge tauros 62, further adds to the elegiac colouring of the passage. The main subject of Mopsus’ capping song is the solitary song of the pastoral lover (v. 41: solus cano); as elaborated in detail in chapter 5, cf. pp. 200 – 1, this constitutes a completely ‘unpastoral’ attitude, put down as such in the case of the eleventh Theocritean idyll as well, where the Cyclops plays his syrinx alone and, what is more, during the night, and in the second and the ninth Vergilian eclogue. In Verg. Ecl. 2.3 – 5, it is the elegiac Corydon that sings alone for his beloved Alexis, whereas in the ninth eclogue the fact that Moeris sings alone in the night has also been read as an ‘unpastoral’ side-effect caused by the abrupt intrusion of historical side-effects onto the pastoral literary "suw_a, cf. again p. 201. Once again, a Theocritean model with a peculiar ‘generic profile’ is combined with Vergilian intertexts of rather ‘unpastoral’, mainly elegiac, ‘generic identity’. Furthermore, the association of Theocr. 11 and Verg. Ecl. 2 as the main intertexts of Nemesianus’ passage in question is also based on the appeal of the first line, v. 38: huc, Meroe formosa, veni, which should be compared to Verg. Ecl. 2.45: huc ades, o formose puer (a combination of huc + imperative form + formosus as a qualifying adjective of the beloved, see also Verg. Ecl. 9.39 – 4363) and to Theocr. 11.42: !kk’ !v_jeuso poh’ "l]64. However, Mopsus’ lonely song during the heat of a summer day (cf. v. 38: vocat aestus in umbram, v. 42: nec aestivis cantu concedo cicadis)

59 60 61 62 63 64

may be explained simply as the physical result of the unrequited love Philinos experiences; cf. Hunter 1999, 188 – 9. Cf. Cupaiuolo 1997, 181. Cf. Tarán 1985, 90 – 107. Cf. Walter 1988, 75 and n.1, McKeown 1989, 227 – 8, Maltby 2002, 223, 314. For a detailed analysis of the imitation, cf. Walter 1988, 79. See also Volpilhac 1975, 70, Korzeniewski 1976, 50, Cupaiuolo 1997, 183. Cf. Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 104, Cupaiuolo 1997, 184. For this association, cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 50, Walter 1988, 81.

332

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

brings Mopsus’ song closer to Vergil’s Corydon65, i. e., the second Vergilian eclogue, where a similar emphasis is given on the lone performance of the herdsman in love (v. 4: solus) and the circumstances of a hot summer noon (vv. 8 – 1366, cf. also the relation of the lover’s song with the shrill of the cicada, Verg. Ecl. 2.13, Nemes. 4.42). Despite an initial impression of a traditional pastoral scenery, created by the standard generic pastoral location, a seat under the shadow of a tree (v. 38), Mopsus moves one step further than his elegiac Vergilian intertext in ‘de-pastoralising’ the setting of his song: in his case the scorching heat does not affect only the snake, which leaves no markings on the ground and seeks refuge under the trees, but the birds as well, which in their turn give up singing (vv. 39 – 40: iam nulla canoro gutture cantat avis). However birds chirping constitute a basic feature of the pastoral locus amoenus (cf. introduction, chapter 4, pp. 16, 164 – 5) and its annulment here (vs. the Vergilian intertext, where such information is not given) may be read on a meta-poetic level as an elimination of basic pastoral ‘generic constituents’. The elegiac wording of vv. 39 – 40: nulla canoro gutture cantat avis probably modeled on Tib. 1.3.60: dulce sonant tenui gutture carmen aves, Ov. Am. 1.13.8: et liquidum tenui gutture cantat avis, Trist. 3.12.8: indocili…loquax gutture vernat avis 67 complements the ‘generic orientation’ of the strophe with the expected by now elegiac diction. Lycidas retorts by admonishing Iollas to protect his skin against the destructive effects of the sun, vv. 44 – 5: niveum ne perde colorem sole sub hoc, as both puellae and pueri should avoid a color ustus that befits rustics and not urban beauty68. The deeply tanned skin of a beloved is an issue in the Theocritean corpus as well, where it occurs in the non-bucolic tenth idyll, v. 27; here Bolb}ja, Boukaios’ darling, is described as "ki|jaustom. A distinction between a niger Menalcas and a candidus urban Alexis also occurs in Verg. Ecl. 2.15 – 769 ; and finally the topic of the negatively valued sun burnt skin further appears in the Tibullan

65 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 200. 66 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 70, Walter 1988, 80 – 1, Pearce 1992, 83, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 104. 67 Cf. Walter 1988, 81 for the association of line 40 with Ov. Am. 1.13.8. See also Korzeniewski 1976, 51, Cupaiuolo 1997, 184. 68 Cf. Maltby 2002, 327. 69 Cf. also Korzeniewski 1976, 51, Walter 1988, 81, Pearce 1992, 84, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 104, Hubbard 1998, 200 – 1.

The Song Exchange

333

elegy as well, cf. Tib. 1.9.1570, 2.3.9, cf. also Hor. Epod. 2.41 – 2, Ov. Ars 3.303, Med. 1371. The elegiac colouring of the present strophe is further underlined by Iollas’ being invoked as saevus, cf. v. 44: tu quoque, saeve puer. Saevus is used here in its traditional elegiac meaning, i. e., for designating the cruelty of the elegiac mistress or the puer delicatus cf. Tib. 1.8.62, 2.4.672 ; the usage is again unparalleled in extant Roman pastoral73. Lycidas invites his darling in the shade of a locus amoenus74 crucially comprising the traditional pastoral shade (v. 46: requiesce sub umbra, cf. also Verg. Ecl. 7.1075), cool waters and vines; however the intertextual model for this paradise comes significantly from Theocr. 11.42 – 876, a ‘generically ambivalent’ idyll as frequently claimed in this study, and more specifically from the lines where Cyclops woos Galatea. These lines are in the Vergilian pastoral corpus further associated with the ‘pastoral dislocation’ of the ninth eclogue, where they simply survive as a flash of an otherwise lost pastoral memory in Moeris’ lines (vv. 39 – 43, cf. chapter 5, pp. 199 – 200). The second Vergilian intertext of the present Nemesianian passage, Verg. Ecl. 10.42 – 377, where the elegiac Gallus invites his Lycoris to a bucolic tour, further underlines the ‘generic interaction’ between elegy and pastoral. Mopsus’ song in the next lines can similarly be viewed as expressing a degree of ‘generic tension’. Mopsus claims (vv. 50 – 1) that whoever can tolerate Meroe’s scorn will also be equal to enduring Sithonian snows and the heat of Libya (v. 51: Sithonias feret ille nives Libyaeque

70 For this Tibullan elegy as the model for Nemesianus’ formulation here, cf. Hubbard 1998, 201. See also Volpilhac 1975, 60, Korzeniewski 1976, 51, Cupaiuolo 1997, 184. 71 Cf. Murgatroyd 1991, 262, Maltby 2002, 398. 72 Cf. also Pichon 1966, 257 – 8. 73 One instance of the adjective in Verg. Ecl. 8.47 – 8: saeuus Amor docuit natorum sanguine matrem commaculare manus is related to the tragic eros of Medea leading her to the murder of her children (cf. chapter 3, pp. 140 – 1). In Eins. 2.37 the adjective is used in reference to lions, subeunt iuga saeva leones. 74 Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 130 – 1. 75 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 60, Korzeniewski 1976, 51, Walter 1988, 82, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 104, Cupaiuolo 1997, 184. 76 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 25. 77 For the intertexts of the present Nemesianian locus amoenus, cf. also Castagna 1970, 418 – 9, Walter 1988, 81 – 2, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 104, Cupaiuolo 1997, 184, Hubbard 1998, 201 and n.92. See also Keene 1969, 193, Volpilhac 1975, 60, Korzeniewski 1976, 51.

334

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

calorem), according to the omnia perpetiar elegiac motif 78. The same image of cold vs. heat is also used by the elegiac Gallus, when finally avowing his elegiac identity, Verg. Ecl. 10.65 – 8: nec si…Sithoniasque nives hiemis subeamus aquosae, nec si…Aethiopum versemus ovis sub sidere Cancri 79. Besides, the image of traveling to the extremes of the world (Sithonian Thrace, Libyan heat, Sardinian herbs (vv. 51 – 3), African lions (v. 54)) seems to have a meta-poetic dimension in the Vergilian pastoral, suggesting, as elsewhere remarked, cf. pp. 140, 252, mainly on the basis of Verg. Ecl. 1.64 – 6, not only a movement away from the ‘green cabinet’80 but also from pastoral poetics of neoteric inspiration81. The ‘generic re-evaluation’ of pastoral in the present poem is also discernible through Mopsus’ wording in v. 50: Meroes fastidia lenta superbae. Fastidium is used here in its common elegiac meaning, i. e., denoting the arrogance of the elegiac puella, contemptus superbiaque erga amantem, cf. also Tib. 1.8.69, Ov. Epist. 16.99, Rem. 305, 54282. A similar meaning of the word appears in the Vergilian pastoral only in the second ‘elegiac eclogue’ again, vv. 14 – 583 : nonne fuit satius, tristis Amaryllidis iras atque superba pati fastidia?, when Corydon, introducing the well-known elegiac topos of the erotic rival, asks himself whether it would have been better to endure Amaryllis’ disdain or (vv. 15 – 6) Menalcas’ dark complexion rather than white Alexis’ scorn84. Lycidas then sings about the advice that a praeceptor amoris gives to the lover of boys, vv. 56 – 60. The motif appears in Greek pastoral not in the Theocritean corpus but in both Moschus and Bion, who was also known for the fact that (E.B. 83): ja· pa_dym 1d_dasje vik^lata, cf. also Call. fr. 571 Pf. The topos appears in Bion fr. 10 where, 78 Cf. Kölblinger 1971, 159 – 69, Korzeniewski 1976, 131, Walter 1988, 83. 79 For Verg. Ecl. 10.65 – 9 as the intertext of Nemes. 4.51 – 4, cf. Hubbard 1998, 202 – 3. See also Volpilhac 1975, 60, Korzeniewski 1976, 52, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 105, Cupaiuolo 1997, 185. 80 Cf. Hubbard 1998, 203 and n.93. See also Cupaiuolo 1997, 185. 81 Cf. also Papanghelis 1995, 194 – 7. 82 Cf. Pichon 1966, 142, Walter 1988, 83 and n.2. 83 Cf. also Volpilhac 1975, 60, Korzeniewski 1976, 52, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 105, Cupaiuolo 1997, 185, Hubbard 1998, 201 – 2. 84 At the end of the second Vergilian eclogue, as already remarked (cf. also chapter 9, p. 313; see also p. 103), having reinstated himself in the pastoral value system, Corydon is ‘generically mending’ nicely, when exhorting himself: v. 73: invenies alium…Alexin, if this one still (in his previous elegiac manner) disdains you, si te hic fastidit.

The Song Exchange

335

as in the present eclogue of Nemesianus and its main Theocritean and Vergilian intertexts, a ‘generic interaction’ of pastoral with erotic poetry forms the basis of the fragment’s narrative: a bucolic singer means to teach Eros pastoral song, but the reverse takes place, as the pastoral poet is the one to be taught by Eros his 1qyt}ka. This pastoral instance of the motif offers, interestingly, a clear-cut ‘generic distinction’ between bucolic poetry, on the one hand, and erotic or erotic-pastoral poetry, on the other (cf. also introduction, p. 25). The topos appears in a further fragment of Moschus as well, of not particularly bucolic character, namely fr. 3.7 – 8, where Eros as a praeceptor amoris instructs the river Alpheus on how to reach Arethusa. Eros is there significantly depicted as j_qor deimoh]tar jajol\wamor aQm± did\sjym (3.7). In Roman terms the motif has no other pastoral parallels; it is common instead in comedy and chiefly in the elegiac genre, cf. Tib. 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, frequently in Propertius’ first book (1.1, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10), Ov. Am. 1.4, 1.8, 2.19, 3.1.49 – 52, 3.4, the whole of the Ars and Rem. 85 Both in its details and its wording the passage is modeled on an elegiac intertext, Tib. 1.486. In particular, its main subject matter, patience in courting (the erotic instructor advises the lover of boys not to be in haste, as eventually the puer will succumb to his suitor’s demands, vv. 56 – 9), is found in Tib. 1.4.15 – 20, 39 – 56 as well as in several other elegiac instances, cf. Prop. 1.1.9 ff., Ov. Ars 1.471 – 8, 2.177 – 8687. The wording of v. 56: quisquis amat pueros 88, ferro praecordia duret is also Tibullan, cf. Tib. 1.1.63 – 4: flebis: non tua sunt duro praecordia ferro vincta 89. What is more, the image of the insensitive heart, praecordia in amatory settings, has further parallels in the elegiac genus, cf. Ov. Epist. 10.107, 12.183 – 490. The same ‘generic origin’ can also be attributed to the notion of fastus (v. 59), the haughtiness of the beloved that

85 86 87 88

Cf. Maltby 2002, 216. Cf. Hubbard 1998, 203 – 4. Cf. Korzeniewski 1976, 132, Murgatroyd 1991, 137, Maltby 2002, 220. For the quisquis formulation as common in the elegiac genre, cf. Walter 1988, 84, Maltby 2002, 162. Cf. also Tib. 1.2.29: quisquis amore tenetur, Prop. 3.16.13: quisquis amator erit, Ov. Rem. 579. 89 Cf. Volpilhac 1975, 61, Korzeniewski 1976, 52, Walter 1988, 84, Cupaiuolo 1997, 186, Hubbard 1998, 203. 90 Cf. Pichon 1966, 238, Korzeniewski 1976, 53, Murgatroyd 1991, 66 – 7, Maltby 2002, 144 – 5.

336

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

the lover is invited to endure, perferat et fastus, cf. also Tib. 1.8.75, Prop. 1.1.3, Ov. Am. 2.17.9, Ars 1.715, Rem. 511, Fast. 1.41991. The last song exchange concerns the use of magic in amatory contexts, as Mopsus and Lycidas resort to witchcraft in order to relieve the destructive elegiac passion which they are suffering. Both the basic idea of magic for amorous purposes and the details of the practice allude mainly to Alphesiboeus’ song in the eighth Vergilian eclogue, which is in its turn largely modeled on the second Theocritean urban mine92, see p. 144; cf. the lustratio (vv. 62 – 4, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.73 – 7), the crackling laurel (v. 65, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.82 – 3), the casting of ashes into the river with one’s face turned away (v. 64, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.101 – 2), the multicoloured threads (v. 68, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.73 – 7), the magic herbs combined with magic spells (vv. 69 – 70, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.68 – 70, for the qualification ignotas (v. 69) see Verg. Ecl. 8.95 – 693), the magical affection of the moon (v. 70, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.6994), the split of the snakes (v. 70, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.71), the spiriting away of the crops, and the charming of nature (v. 71, cf. Verg. Ecl. 8.99). In the Vergilian intertext, an unnamed female character (cf. chapter 3, p. 14495) practises magic with the aid of her maid in order to ‘correct’ her partner’s, Daphnis’, ‘elegiac deviation’ towards a city-bred affair. The subject, magic for amatory purposes, does appear in the Theocritean corpus, but only in the urban second mime, of which the eighth Vergilian eclogue constitutes an adaptation. Thus, once again, a nonpastoral Theocritean model is combined with a Vergilian intertext exploring the boundaries of pastoral as a genre and its interaction with the elegiac world (cf. chapter 3, pp. 144 ff.). This generically complex ancestry is emphasised, following the basic ‘generic structure’ of this 91 Cf. Pichon 1966, 143, Walter 1988, 85. 92 Cf. also Duff and Duff 1934, 483 – 4, Keene 1969, 195 – 6, Volpilhac 1975, 61 – 2, 70, Korzeniewski 1976, 53 – 5, 132 – 3, Walter 1988, 85 – 7, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 94, 106, 113, Cupaiuolo 1997, 38, 186 – 8, Hubbard 1998, 204 – 5. 93 Cf. Williams 1986, 159. 94 For a reading of the line as suggesting the traditional calling down of the moon, cf. mainly Williams 1986, 159 – 60. 95 In Nemes. 4.69 the sorceress is called Mycale; as the name of a witch Mycale does also appear in Ov. Met. 12.263 – 4 and Sen. H.O. 525 – 7 (cf. also Verdière 1974, 83 – 4, Korzeniewski 1976, 133, Ferri – Moreschini 1994, 99, 118, Cupaiuolo 1997, 8 and n.6, 188). These ‘epic’ and tragic instances may also be read as further enhancing the ‘diversifying generic orientation’ of the eclogue.

Conclusion

337

Nemesianian eclogue, by a plainly elegiac intertext, Tib. 1.8.17 – 24, where the poet, assuming the traditional elegiac posture of a praeceptor amoris, speaks of an old witch practising magic, v. 18: tacito tempore noctis 96. In opposition to the main Vergilian intertext the two singers of Nemesianus cannot overcome their elegiac passion. In the line of the elegiac Tibullan model (cf. Tib. 1.8.24), beauty eventually proves stronger in Nemesianus’ case as well. Vergil allows ‘pastoral orthodoxy’ to be re-established, as Daphnis re-enters the norms of the ‘green cabinet’ abandoning his rather elegiac pursuits. In Nemesianus’ world, on the other hand, the drive towards elegy is so strong that no return to ‘pastoral purity’ is feasible; for all the magic, Meroe and Iollas manage to maintain their (elegiac) fascination on Mopsus and Lycidas respectively.

Conclusion A basic ‘generic pattern’ has been discerned for the most part of the singing match; both herdsmen-singers often employ intertexts originating either from the oeuvre of a pastoral Greek poet, but outside the bucolic circle of his poems (e. g. Theocr. 2 or 10), or from a bucolic poem displaying signs of a significant ‘generic interaction’ with other literary genres (e. g. Theocr. 11). This distant pastoral intertext is frequently combined with a Roman pastoral subtext, which has often been read in the relevant bibliography as also moving away from ‘traditional pastoral’ towards the elegiac genre (Verg. Ecl. 2, 8, Calp. 3). In some cases, both the Greek and the Roman intertexts constitute a meta-poetic discourse on the ‘generic contact’ of elegy with pastoral (Bion fr. 10, Verg. Ecl. 10), and therefore a similar analysis can also apply to the present Nemesianian friendly song exchange. The ‘unpastoral’, mainly elegising Vergilian, intertext is further complemented by a similarity in the motifs, the diction and the style of the two herdsmen’s songs with Roman love elegy. In the ‘generic line’ of the Vergilian Gallus in the tenth eclogue, who acknowledges, at the end of the poem, his elegiac identity, the fourth eclogue of Nemesianus as well ends with the prevalence of the ‘hosted elegiac genre’ 96 For this Tibullan elegy as the model of Lycidas’ song, cf. Hubbard 1998, 204 – 6. See also Volpilhac 1975, 62, Korzeniewski 1976, 55, Walter 1988, 85 – 6, Cupaiuolo 1997, 188.

338

The Rematch: Reading Nemesianus’ Fourth Eclogue

over the ‘pastoral host-text’ (cf. also previous chapter, p. 29797). Meroe and Iollas have been read as defying and scorning traditional pastoral ‘generic markers’; thus their suitors are called upon to ‘transcend’ long-established ‘pastoral norms’ towards the elegiac ‘generic code’.

97 For a parallel structure between Nemes. 2 and Nemes. 4, see Schetter 1975, 38, Walter 1988, 88 – 9.

Bibliography Text acknowledgment: Unless otherwise stated, quotations from and references to Theocritus and Moschus follow the OCT text by A. S. F. Gow, Bucolici Graeci, for Bion the edition by Reed 1997 was used, whereas for Vergil Fairclough and Goold 1999 is followed. As to post-Vergilians pastoral (Calpurnius Siculus, Eins. Eclogues, Nemesianus), I accept the text of Duff and Duff 1934. Adams, J. N. (1982), The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London. Ahl, F. M. (1984), ‘The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius’, ANRW II. 32.1: 40 – 124. Ahrens, H. L. (1874), ‘Über einige alte Sammlungen der Theokritischen Gedichte’, Philologus 33: 385 – 417. Albini, U. (1951), ‘L’ Ecloga VII di Virgilio’, Maia 4: 161 – 6. Alpers, P. (1979), The Singer of the Eclogues: A Study of Virgilian Pastoral, Berkeley. Alpers, P. (1986), ‘Community and Convention in Vergilian Pastoral’ in Bernard, J. D. (ed.) Vergil at 2000. Commemorative Essays on the Poet and his Influence, New York, 43 – 65. Alpers, P. (1996), What is Pastoral?, Chicago. Amat, J. (1988), ‘La Révélation d’un Artiste Méconnu. L’Imaginaire de Calpurnius Siculus’ in Thomas, J. (ed.) L’Imaginaire de l’ Espace et du Temps chez les Latins, Cahiers de l’Université de Perpignan 5, Perpignan, 75 – 90. Amat, J. (1991), Calpurnius Siculus, Bucoliques. Pseudo-Calpurnius, loge de Pison. Texte tabli et Traduit, Paris. Amat, J. (1995), ‘L’ Image Bucolique Post-Virgilienne’ in Thomas, J. (ed.) Les Imaginaires des Latins. Actes du Colloque International de Perpignan (12-13-14 Novembre 1991), Perpignan, 77 – 87. Amat, J. (1997), Consolation  Livie, lgies  Mcne, Bucoliques d’ Einsiedeln. Texte tabli et Traduit, Paris. Amat, J. (1998), ‘Humour et Ironie dans les Bucoliques de Calpurnius Siculus et les Carmina Einsidlensia’, REL 76: 192 – 9. Amatucci, A. G. (1947), La Letteratura di Roma Imperiale, Bologna. Anderson, G. (1993), ‘The Origins of Daphnis’, PVS 21: 65 – 79. Anderson, W. S. (1972), Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Books 6 – 10, Norman, Oklahoma. Antoniadis, T. (2006), G Qgtoqij^ tgr ‘Epicomij|tgtar’. Eqlgmeutij|r Swokiasl|r tym Amores tou Obid_ou, Diss.,Thessaloniki. Arland, W. (1937), Nachtheokritische Bukolik bis an die Schwelle der lateinischen Bukolik, Diss., Leipzig.

340

Bibliography

Armstrong, D. (1986), ‘Stylistics and the Date of Calpurnius Siculus’, Philologus 130: 113 – 36. Armstrong, D. and Champlin, E. (1986), ‘The Date of Calpurnius Siculus. Conclusion’, Philologus 130: 137. Armstrong, R. (2006), Cretan Women: Pasiphae, Ariadne, and Phaedra in Latin Poetry, Oxford. Arnott, W. G. (1996), ‘The Preoccupations of Theocritus: Structure, Illusive Realism, Allusive Learning’ in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) Hellenistica Groningana 2: Theocritus, Groningen, 55 – 70. Austin, R. G. (1964), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Secundus, Oxford. Axelson, B. (1945), Unpoetische Wçrter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache, Lund. Baehrens, E. (1872), ‘Zu Calpurnius’, RhM 27: 186. Baldwin, B. (1995), ‘Better Late than Early: Reflections on the Date of Calpurnius Siculus’, ICS 20: 157 – 67. Balzert, M. (1971), ‘Hirtensorgen im Goldenen Zeitalter. Eine Interpretation des Carmen Einsidlense II’, AU 14.3: 24 – 42. Barchiesi, A. (2006), ‘Music for Monsters: Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Bucolic Evolution, and Bucolic Criticism’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 403 – 25. Bardon, H. (1968), Les Empereurs et les Lettres Latines d’Auguste  Hadrien, Paris. Bardon, H. (1972), ‘Bucolique et Politique’, RhM 115: 1 – 13. Barsby, J. (1999), Terence: Eunuchus, Cambridge. Bartalucci, A. (1976), ‘Persio e i Poeti di Età Neroniana’, RCCM 18: 85 – 116. Baudy, G. J. (1993), ‘Hirtenmythos und Hirtenlied. Zu den rituellen Aspekten der bukolischen Dichtung’, Poetica 25: 282 – 318. Baumbach, M. (2001), ‘Dichterwettstreit als Liebeswerbung in Vergils 5 Ekloge’, Philologus 145: 108 – 20. Beato, J. (1995), ‘Calpúrnio Sículo: um Poeta Pobre ou um Pobre Poeta?’, Humanitas 47: 617 – 27. Beato, J. (2003), ‘Da Normalidade de Calpúrnio à Singularidade de Nemesiano’, gora 5: 83 – 105. Becker, C. (1955), ‘Virgils Eklogenbuch’, Hermes 83: 314 – 49. Becker, A. S. (1996), ‘Poetry as Equipment for Living: a Gradual Reading of Vergil’s Ninth Eclogue’, Classics Ireland 6: 1 – 22. Benario, H. W. (1954), ‘Vergil, Ecl. 3.60’, CW 47: 199. Berg, W. (1974), Early Virgil, London. Berger, H. (1984), ‘The Origins of Bucolic Representation: Disenchantment and Revision in Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll’, ClAnt. 3: 1 – 39. Berman, D. W. (2005), ‘The Hierarchy of Herdsmen, Goatherding, and Genre in Theocritean Bucolic’, Phoenix 59: 228 – 45. Bernardi-Perini, G. (2002), ‘La ‘bucula’ disperata: (Verg. Ecl. 8.85 – 89)’, Paideia 57: 24 – 33. Bernsdorff, H. (1996), ‘Parataktische Gleichnisse bei Theokrit’ in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) Hellenistica Groningana 2: Theocritus, Groningen, 71 – 90.

Bibliography

341

Bernsdorff, H. (2006), ‘The Idea of Bucolic in the Imitators of Theocritus, 3rd – 1st century BC’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 167 – 208. Bettini, M. (1972), ‘Corydon Corydon’, SCO 21: 261 – 76. Beyers, E. E. (1962), ‘Vergil, Eclogue VII. A Theory of Poetry’, AC 5: 38 – 47. Bickel, E. (1954), ‘Politische Sibylleneklogen: Die Sibyllenekloge des Consularis Piso an Nero und der politische Sinn der Erwähnung des Achilles in der Sibyllenekloge Vergils’, RhM 97: 193 – 228. Bignone, E. (1934), Teocrito: Studio Critico, Bari. Binder, G. (1989), ‘Hirtenlied und Herrscherlob. Von den Wandlungen der römischen Bukolik’, Gymnasium 96: 363 – 5. Bömer, F. (1969), P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen, Buch I-III, Kommentar, Heidelberg. Bonfante, P. B. (1912), ‘La Vera Data di un Testo di Calpurnio Siculo e il Concetto Romano del Tesoro’ in Mlanges P. F. Girard. tudes de Droit Romain Ddies  P. F. Girard. 1, Paris, 123 – 42. Boswell, J. (1994), Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, New York. Bowersock, G. W. (1971), ‘A Date in the Eighth Eclogue’, HSPh 75: 73 – 80. Bowersock, G. W. (1978), ‘The Addressee of Virgil’s Eighth Eclogue: A Response’, HSPh 82: 201 – 2. Bowie, E. L. (1985), ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus’, CQ 35: 67 – 91. Boyle, A. J. (1975), ‘A Reading of Virgil’s Eclogues’, Ramus 4: 187 – 203. Boyle, A. J. (1977), ‘Virgil’s Pastoral Echo’, Ramus 6: 121 – 31. Boyle, A. J. (1986), The Chaonian Dove: Studies in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid of Vergil, Leiden. Braun, L. (1969), ‘Adynata und versus intercalaris im Lied Damons (Vergil, Ecl. 8)’, Philologus 113: 292 – 7. Braun, L. (1971), ‘Der Sängerstreit der Hirten in Vergils dritter und siebenter Ekloge’, Gymnasium 78: 400 – 6. Braund, D. (1983), ‘Treasure-trove and Nero’, G&R 30: 65 – 9. Braund, S. H. (1988), Beyond Anger: A Study of Juvenal’s Third Book of Satires, Cambridge. Breed, B. W. (2000), ‘Imitations of Originality: Theocritus and Lucretius at the Start of the Eclogues’, Vergilius 46: 3 – 20. Breed, B. W. (2006), Pastoral Inscriptions. Reading and Writing Virgil’s Eclogues, London. Breed, B. W. (2006a), ‘Time and Textuality in the Book of the Eclogues’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 333 – 67. Breed, B. W. (2006b), ‘Inscribing Dialogue in Pastoral Poetics and Criticism’ in Skoie, M. and Velázquez, S. B. (eds.) Pastoral and the Humanities: Arcadia Re-inscribed, Exeter, 89 – 100. Brenk, F. E. (1981), ‘War and the Shepherd. The Tomb of Bianor in Vergil’s Ninth Eclogue’, AJPh 102: 427 – 30. Briggs, W. W. (1981), ‘A Bibliography of Virgil’s Eclogues’ (1927 – 1977)’, ANRW II. 31.2: 1267 – 1357.

342

Bibliography

Brisson, J. P. (1966), Virgile, son Temps et le Ntre, Paris. Brown, E. L. (1963), Numeri Vergiliani: Studies in ‘Eclogues’ and ‘Georgics’, Brussels. Brown, E. L. (1978), ‘Damoetas’ Riddle, Euclid’s Theorem 1.32’, Vergilius 24: 25 – 31. Brown, E. L. (1981), ‘The Lycidas of Theocritus’ Idyll 7’, HSPh 85: 59 – 100. Brown, R. D. (1987), Lucretius on Love and Sex, Leiden. Brunetière, F. (1890), L’ volution des Genres dans l’ Histoire de la Littrature, Paris. Bücheler, F. (1871), ‘Zur höfischen Poesie unter Nero’, RhM 26: 235 – 40. Büchner, K. (1955 – 8), ‘P. Vergilius Maro’, RE 8 A: 1021 – 1486. Buchheit, V. (1959), ‘Catulls Dichterkritik in c.36’, Hermes 87: 309 – 27. Buchheit, V. (1984), ‘Wunder der Dichtung (Vergil, Ecl. 3, 88 f.)’, WJA 10: 73 – 6. Buchheit, V. (1990), ‘Der frühe Vergil und Oktavian’, SO 65: 53 – 62. Buller, J. L. (1981), ‘The Pathetic Fallacy in Hellenistic Pastoral’, Ramus 10: 35 – 52. Burckhardt, J. (1954), Constantino il Grande e i suoi Tempi, – Italian translation by Michelson, A., Milan. Butler, H. E. (1909), Post-Augustan Poetry from Seneca to Juvenal, Oxford. Byrne, S. N. (2004), ‘Martial’s Fiction: Domitius Marsus and Maecenas’, CQ 54: 255 – 65. Cairns, F. (1979), Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome, Cambridge. Cairns, F. (1984), ‘Theocritus’ First Idyll: The Literary Programme’, WS 18: 89 – 113. Cameron, A. (1995), Callimachus and His Critics, Princeton. Camilloni, M. T. (1979 – 80), ‘Una Lettura di Virg., Ecl. VII’, Sileno 5 – 6: 303 – 14. Campbell, J. S. (1982 – 3), ‘Damoetas’ Riddle: A Literary Solution’, CJ 78: 122 – 6. Camps, W. A. (1985), Propertius: Elegies Book III, London. Canetta, I. (2008), ‘Muse e Ninfe nella Settina Ecloga di Virgilio’, Eikasmos 19: 209 – 23. Cancik, H. (1965), Untersuchungen zur lyrischen Kunst des P. Papinius Statius, Hildesheim. Cartault, A. (1897), tude sur les Bucoliques de Virgile, Paris. Casaceli, F. (1982), ‘Temi Letterari e Spunti Autobiografici nell’ Opera di T. Calpurnio Siculo’, CCC 3: 85 – 103. Cassio, A. C. (1973), ‘L’ Incipit della Chioma Callimachea in Virgilio’, RFIC 101: 329 – 32. Castagna, L. (1970), ‘Le Fonti Greche dei Bucolica di Nemesiano’, Aevum 44: 415 – 43. Castagna, L. (1982), ‘Il Carme Amebeo della IV Ecloga di Calpurnio Siculo’ in Croisille, J. M. and Fauchère, P. M. (eds.) Neronia 1977: Actes du 2e Colloque de la Socit Internationale d’ tudes Nroniennes, Clermont-Ferrand, 159 – 69.

Bibliography

343

Castagna, L. (2002), ‘Anticlassicismo Neroniano? Spunta per Una Verifica’ in Castagna, L. and Vogt-Spira, G. (eds.) Pervertere: sthetik der Verkehrung. Literatur und Kultur neronischer Zeit und ihre Rezeption, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 151, Munich, ix-xix. Castelli, G. (1966), ‘Echi Lucreziani nelle Ecloghe Virgiliane’, RSC 14: 313 – 42. Castelli, G. (1967), ‘Echi Lucreziani nelle Ecloghe Virgiliane’, RSC 15: 14 – 39, 176 – 216. Castiglioni, L. (1955), ‘Due Note alle Bucholiche di Calpurnio e Nemesiano’ in Studi in Onore di Gino Funaioli, Rome, 19 – 22. Cataudella, Q. (1956), ‘Lycidas’ in Studi in onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli, Florence, 159 – 69. Caviglia, F. (1984), ‘Coridone’ in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, Rome, 887 – 9. Cazzaniga, I. (1954), ‘Agni o Tauri in Pervigilium Veneris v. 81?’, RIL 87: 271 – 82. Cerda, J. L. de la, S. L. (1628), P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica et Georgica, Cologne. Cesareo, E. (1931), La Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Palermo. Champlin, E. (1978), ‘The Life and Times of Calpurnius Siculus’, JRS 68: 95 – 110. Champlin, E. (1986), ‘History and the Date of Calpurnius Siculus’, Philologus 130: 104 – 12. Champlin, E. (2003), ‘Nero, Apollo, and the Poets’, Phoenix 57: 276 – 83. Chastagnol, A. (1976), ‘Trois Études sur la Vita Cari’ in Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1972 / 1974, Bonn, 75 – 90. Chiavola, C. (1921), Della Vita e dell’ Opera di T. Calpurnio Siculo, Ragusa. Chinnici, V. (2009), ‘La Dialettica fra Suono e Silenzio in Calpurnio Siculo’ in Landolfi, L. and Oddo, R. (eds.) Fer Propius Tua Lumina; Giochi Intertestuali nella Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Bologna, 129 – 42. Chytil, F. (1894), ‘Der Eklogendichter T. Calpurnius Siculus und seine Vorbilder’ in Jahresbericht des k. k. Gymnasiums in Znaim, Znaim, 3 – 24. Chwalek, B. (1990), ‘Elegische Interpretationen zu Vergil’s zehnter Ekloge’, Gymnasium 97: 304 – 20. Cipolla, G. (1962), ‘Political Audacity and Esotericism in the Ninth Eclogue’, AC 5: 48 – 57. Cisorio, L. (1896), Dell’ Imitazione nelle Ecloghe di M. Aurelio Olimpio Nemesiano, Pisa. Cizek, E. (1968), ‘À propos de la Litterature Classique au temps de Néron’, StudClas 10: 147 – 57. Cizek, E. (1972), L’ poque de Nron et ses Controverses Idologiques, Leiden. Clausen, W. (1964), ‘Callimachus and Latin Poetry’, GRBS 5: 181 – 96. Clausen, W. (1972), ‘On the Date of the First Eclogue’, HSPh 76: 201 – 5. Clausen, W. (1987), Virgil’s Aeneid and the Tradition of Hellenistic Poetry, Berkeley. Clausen, W. (1994), A Commentary on Virgil, Eclogues, Oxford. Clauss, J. J. (2002 – 3), ‘Large and Illyrical Waters in Vergil’s Eighth Eclogue’, Hermathena 173 – 4: 165 – 73.

344

Bibliography

Clay, J. S. (1974), ‘Damoetas’ Riddle and the Structure of Vergil’s Third Eclogue’, Philologus 118: 59 – 64. Clément-Tarantino, S. (2006), ‘La Poétique Romaine Comme Hybridation Féconde. Les Leçons de la Greffe (Virgile, Géorgiques, 2, 9 – 82)’, Interfrences Ars Scribendi 4 (=http://ars-scribendi.ens-lsh.fr/article.php3?id_article=37&var_affichage=vf). Cohen, R. (1987), ‘Do Postmodern Genres Exist?’, Genre 20: 241 – 58. Coleiro, E. (1979), An Introduction to Vergil’s Bucolics with a Critical Edition of the Text, Amsterdam. Coleman, K. M. (1988), Statius: Silvae IV, Oxford. Coleman, K. M. (1990), ‘Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments’, JRS 80: 44 – 73. Coleman, K. M. (2006), Martial: Liber Spectaculorum, Oxford. Coleman, R. (1975), ‘Greek Influence on Latin Syntax’, TPhS 73: 101 – 56. Coleman, R. (1975a), ‘Vergil’s Pastoral Modes’, Ramus 4: 140 – 62. Coleman, R. (1977), Vergil: Eclogues, Cambridge. Connolly, J. (2001), ‘Picture Arcadia: The Politics of Representation in Vergil’s Eclogues’, Vergilius 47: 89 – 116. Conrad, C. W. (1965), ‘Traditional Patterns of Word – Order in Latin Epic from Ennius to Vergil’, HSPh 69: 195 – 258. Conte, G. B. (1986), The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, – English translation by Segal, C., Ithaca, NY. Cooper, F. T. (1895), Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius, New York. Cooper, H. (1974), ‘The Goat and the Eclogue’, PhQ 53: 363 – 76. Cooper, H. (1977), Pastoral: Mediaeval into Renaissance, Ipswich. Coppola, A. (1998), ‘Asinio Pollione Poeta. Nota a Verg. Ecl. 8.6 – 10’, RFIC 126: 170 – 4. Correa, J. A. (1977), ‘Los Pastores de Calpurnio Siculo’, Habis 8: 149 – 59. Correa, J. A. (1984), ‘La Patria de Calpurnio Siculo’, ECl s 26: 223 – 7. Courtney, E. (1987), ‘Imitation, Chronologie Littéraire et Calpurnius Siculus’, REL 65: 148 – 57. Courtney, E. (2004), ‘The ‘Nachleben’ of the Apocolocyntosis’, RhM 147: 426 – 8. Cremonesi, E. (1958), ‘Rapporti tra le Origini della Poesia Bucolica e della Poesia Comica nella Tradizione Peripatetica’, Dioniso 21: 109 – 22. Croce, B. (1922), Aesthetic, London. Crusius, O. (1895), ‘Zu den Einsiedler Bucolica’, Philologus 54: 380 – 3. Culler, J. (1975), Structuralist Poetics, London. Cupaiuolo, F. (1973), Itinerario della Poesia Latina nel I Secolo dell’ Impero, Naples. Cupaiuolo, G. (1997), Marco Aurelio Olimpio Nemesiano: Eclogae, Naples. Currie, H. MacL. (1976), ‘The Third Eclogue and the Roman Comic Spirit’, Mnemosyne 29: 411 – 20. D’ Anna, G. (1987), ‘Verg. Ecl. 9, 32 – 36 e Prop. 2, 34, 83 – 84’ in Boldrini, S. et al. (eds.) Filologia e Forme Letterarie. Studi Offerti a F. Della Corte II, Urbino, 427 – 38. D’ Anna, G. (1988), ‘Recusatio’ in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, Rome, 411 – 3.

Bibliography

345

Dahlmann, H. (1966), ‘Zu Vergils siebentem Hirtengedicht’, Hermes 94: 218 – 32. Dalby, A. (2000), Empire of Pleasures: Luxury and Indulgence in the Roman World, London. Damon, P. (1973), Modes of Analogy in Ancient and Medieval Verse, Berkeley. Davies, M. and Kathirithamby, J. (1986), Greek Insects, London. Davis, P. J. (1987), ‘Structure and Meaning in the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus’, Ramus 16: 32 – 54. Dehon, P. J. (1993), ‘Calpurnius Siculus, Poète Virgilien de l’Hiver’, REL 71: 203 – 11. De Meo, C. (1983), Lingue Tecniche del Latino, Bologna. Della Corte, F. (1984), ‘Bucoliche’ in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, Rome, 540 – 9, 552 – 70. Della Valle, E. (1927), Il Canto Bucolico in Sicilia e nella Magna Grecia, Naples. Depew, M. and Obbink, D. (2000), (eds.) Matrices of Genre, Cambridge Mass. Derenne, E. (1953), ‘Le Jugement de Palémon (Virg. Buc. III 108 – 10)’, LEC 21: 182 – 7. Derrida, J. (1992), Acts of Literature, London. De Sipio, J. (1935), T. Calpurnii Siculi Bucolica. Testo con Introduzione, Traduzione Italiana e Note, Catania. Desport, M. (1942), ‘Projet d’ une Étude sur la Notion de Carmen et son Expression dans la Littérature Latine’, REL 20: 40 – 3. Desport, M. (1952), L’ Incantation Virgilienne. Virgile et Orphe, Bordeaux. DeWitt, N. W. (1923), Virgil’s Biographia Litteraria, Oxford. Díaz-Cíntora, S. (1989), Tito Calpurnio Sculo: glogas, Mexico. Di Benedetto, V. (1956), ‘Omerismi e Struttura Metrica negli Idilli Dorici di Teocrito’, ASNP 25: 48 – 60. Dick, B. F. (1968), ‘Ancient Pastoral and the Pathetic Fallacy’, CompLit 20: 27 – 44. Dihle, A. (1994), Greek and Roman Literature of the Roman Empire: From Augustus to Justinian, – English translation by Malzahn, M., London. Di Lorenzo, E. (1987), ‘Sulla Tecnica Didascalica della 5a Egloga di Calpurnio Siculo’, Misure Critiche 17: 17 – 23. Di Lorenzo, E. and Pellegrino, B. (2008), T. Calpurnio Siculo: Eclogae, Naples. Di Salvo, L. (1990), T. Calpurnio Siculo, Ecloga VII. Introduzione, Edizione Critica, Traduzione e Commento, Bologna. Di Salvo, L. (1990a), ‘Alcune Osservazioni sulle Ecloghe di Calpurnio Siculo’, CCC 11: 267 – 87. Di Salvo, L. (1991), ‘Qualche Osservazione in Merito a una Recente Edizione delle Ecloghe di Calpurnio Siculo e della Laus Pisonis’, CCC 12: 305 – 16. Dix, T. K. (1995), ‘Vergil in the Grynean Grove: Two Riddles in the Third Eclogue’, CPh 90: 256 – 62. Dönt, E. (1981), ‘Zur Deutung von Vergils fünfter Ekloge’, WJA 7: 135 – 7. Döpp, S. (1993), ‘Hic vester Apollo est: Zum ersten Einsiedler Gedicht’, Hermes 121: 252 – 4. Dover, K. J. (1971), Theocritus: Select Poems, London.

346

Bibliography

Drew, D. L. (1922), ‘Virgil’s Fifth Eclogue. A Defence of the Julius Ceasar – Daphnis Theory’, CQ 16: 57 – 64. Duckworth, G. E. (1952), The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment, Princeton. Duckworth, G. E. (1967), ‘Five Centuries of Latin Hexameter Poetry: Silver Age and Late Empire’, TAPA 98: 77 – 150. Duckworth, G. E. (1969), Vergil and Classical Hexameter Poetry: A Study in Metrical Variety, Ann Arbor. Duff, J. W. and Duff, A. M. (1934), Minor Latin Poets, London. Duff, J. W. (1960), A Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age: From Tiberius to Hadrian, London. Duff, D. (2000), (ed.) Modern Genre Theory, London. Du Quesnay, I. M. LeM. (1979), ‘From Polyphemus to Corydon: Virgil, Eclogue 2 and the Idylls of Theocritus’ in West, D. and Woodman, T. (eds.) Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, Cambridge, 35 – 69. Du Quesnay, I. M. LeM. (1976 – 7 / 1999), ‘Virgil’s Fifth Eclogue: The Song of Mopsus and the New Daphnis’ in Hardie, P. (ed.) Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors I, London, 351 – 84. Du Quesnay, I. M. LeM. (1981), ‘Vergil’s First Eclogue’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3: 29 – 182. Echave-Sustaeta, J. de (1980), ‘Virgilio desde dentro. La Écloga V’, AFFB 6: 115 – 34. Edmondson, J. C. (1996), ‘Dynamic Arenas: Gladiatorial Presentations in the City of Rome and the Construction of Roman Society during the Early Empire’ in Slater, W. J. (ed.) Roman Theater and Society: E. Togo Salmon Papers I, Ann Arbor, 69 – 112. Edquist, H. (1975), ‘Aspects of Theocritean Otium’ in Boyle, A. J. (ed.) Ancient Pastoral: Ramus Essays on Greek and Roman Pastoral Poetry, Berwick, 19 – 32. Effe, B. (1977), Die Genese einer literarischen Gattung: Die Bukolik, Konstanz. Effe, B. (1988), ‘Das poetologische Programm des Simichidas: Theokrit. Id. 7.37 – 41’, WJA 14: 87 – 91. Effe, B. (1992), ‘Die Homoerotik in der griechischen Bukolik’ in Stemmler, T. (ed.) Homoerotische Lyrik. 6. Kolloquium der Forschungsstelle f r europische Lyrik des Mittelalters, Tübingen, 55 – 67. Effe, B. and Binder, G. (1989), Die antike Bukolik, Munich. Effe, B. and Binder, G. (2001), Antike Hirtendichtung. Eine Einf hrung, Düsseldorf. Egan, R. B. (1996), ‘Corydon’s Winning Words in Eclogue 7’, Phoenix 50: 233 – 9. Empson, W. (1935), Some Versions of Pastoral, London. Encuentra-Ortega, A. (1999), ‘El Hexámetro de Nemesiano: Variación Genérica y Cuestiones de Autoría’ in Moreno, J. L. and Díaz y Díaz, P. R. (eds.) Estudios de Mtrica Latina, Granada, 303 – 25. Ernout, A. (1949), Les Adjectifs Latins en –osus et en –ulentus, Paris. Esposito, P. (1996), ‘Per la Storia della Ricezione di Virgilio Bucolico: l’ Ecloga IV di Calpurnio Siculo’, Orpheus 17: 13 – 34.

Bibliography

347

Esposito, P. (2009), ‘La Profezia di Fauno nella I Ecloga di Calpurnio Siculo’ in Landolfi, L. and Oddo, R. (eds.) Fer Propius Tua Lumina; Giochi Intertestuali nella Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Bologna, 13 – 39. Faber, R. A. (1995), ‘Vergil Eclogue 3.37, Theocritus 1, and Hellenistic Ekphrasis’, AJPh 116: 411 – 7. Faber, R. A. (2000), ‘The Literary Metaphor of the Chisel (tornus) in Eclogue 3.38’, Hermes 128: 375 – 8. Fairclough, H. R. and Goold, G. P. (1999), Virgil; Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid IVI, Cambridge Mass. Fantazzi, C. (1966), ‘Virgilian Pastoral and Roman Love Poetry’, AJPh 87: 171 – 91. Fantazzi, C. and Querbach, C. W. (1985), ‘Sound and Substance: A Reading of Virgil’s Seventh Eclogue’, Phoenix 39: 355 – 67. Fantham, E. (1996), Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius, Baltimore. Fantuzzi, M. (1995), ‘Variazioni sull’ Esametro in Teocrito’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Pretagostini, R. (eds.) Struttura e Storia dell’ Esametro Greco 1, Rome, 221 – 64. Fantuzzi, M. (1995a), ‘Mythological Paradigms in the Bucolic Poetry of Theocritus’, PCPhS 41: 16 – 35. Fantuzzi, M. (1997), ‘Eidyllion’ in Der Neue Pauly, Stuttgart, 911 – 2. Fantuzzi, M. (1998), ‘Textual Misadventures of Daphnis: The Pseudo-Theocritean Id. 8 and the Origins of the Bucolic ‘Manner’’ in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) Hellenistica Groningana 3: Genre in Hellenistic Poetry, Groningen, 61 – 79. Fantuzzi, M. (2006), ‘Theocritus’ Constructive Interpreters, and the Creation of a Bucolic Reader’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 235 – 62. Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. L. (2004), Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge. Faraone, C. A. (1989), ‘Clay Hardens and Wax Melts. Magical Role-Reversal in Vergil’s Eighth Eclogue’, CPh 84: 294 – 300. Farrell, J. (1991), Vergil’s Georgics and the Tradition of Ancient Epic. The Art of Allusion in Literary History, Oxford. Farrell, J. (1991a), ‘Asinius Pollio in Vergil, Eclogue 8’, CPh 86: 204 – 11. Farrell, J. (1992), ‘Literary Allusion and Cultural Poetics in Vergil’s Third Eclogue’, Vergilius 38: 64 – 71. Farrell, J. (1992a), ‘Dialogue of Genres in Ovid’s ‘Lovesong of Polyphemus’ (Metamorphoses 13.719 – 897)’, AJPh 113: 235 – 68. Farrington, B. (1963 – 1999), ‘Polemical Allusions to the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius in the Works of Vergil’ in Hardie, P. (ed.) Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors, vol. I, London, 18 – 26. Fear, A. T. (1993), ‘Polar Bears in Antiquity?’, LCM 18: 43 – 5. Fear, A. T. (1994), ‘Laus Neronis: The Seventh Eclogue of Calpurnius Siculus’, Prometheus 20: 269 – 77. Fedeli, P. (1980), Sesto Properzio. Il Primo Libro Delle Elegie, Florence. Fedeli, P. (1985), Properzio: Il Libro Terzo Delle Elegie, Bari.

348

Bibliography

Feeney, D. (2007), Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History, Berkeley. Ferrara, G. (1905), Calpurnio Siculo e il Panegirico a Calpurnio Pisone, Pavia. Ferri, L. and Moreschini, L. (1994), Nemesiano: Le Egloghe, Rome. Fey-Wickert, B. (2002), Calpurnius Siculus: Kommentar zu 2 und 3 Ekloge, Trier. Fisher, R. S. (1982), ‘Conon and the Poet: A Solution to Eclogue III, 40 – 2’, Latomus 41: 803 – 14. Flintoff, E. (1975 – 6), ‘Characterisation in Virgil’s Eclogues’, PVS 15: 16 – 26. Flintoff, E. (1992), ‘Comets and Confidence Tricks: a Meditation on Eclogue IX 47’, ACD 28: 65 – 71. Fordyce, C. J. (1961), Catullus: A Commentary, Oxford. Fowler, A. (1982), Kinds of Literature. An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes, Oxford. Fraenkel, E. (1922), Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin. Frangeskou, V. (1996), ‘Theocritus’ Idyll 1: an Unusual Bucolic Agon’, Hermathena 161: 23 – 42. Freyer, L. (1981), ‘The Riddles of Vergil’s Third Eclogue’, Akroterion 26: 46 – 51. Friedrich, W. (1976), Nachahmung und eigene Gestaltung in der bukolischen Dichtung des Titus Calpurnius Siculus, Frankfurt am Main. Frischer, B. D. (1975), At tu aureus esto. Eine Interpretation von Vergils 7. Ekloge, Bonn. Fucecchi, M. (2009), ‘Ovidio e la Nuova Bucolica di Calpurnio: Osservazioni e Proposte’ in Landolfi, L. and Oddo, R. (eds.) Fer Propius Tua Lumina; Giochi Intertestuali nella Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Bologna, 41 – 65. Fuchs, H. (1966), ‘Zum Wettgesang der Hirten in Vergils siebenter Ekloge’, MH 23: 218 – 23. Fuchs, H. (1973), ‘Zu den Hirtengedichten des Calpurnius Siculus und zu den Carmina Einsidlensia’, MH 30: 228 – 33. Fugmann, J. (1992), ‘Nero oder Severus Alexander? Zur Datierung der Eklogen des Calpurnius Siculus’, Philologus 136: 202 – 7. Gagliardi, D. (1981), ‘Lettura della VI Egloga di Calpurnio Siculo’, CCC 2: 37 – 44. Gagliardi, D. (1984), Calpurnio Siculo, un ‘Minore’ di Talento, Naples. Gagliardi, P. (2003), Gravis Cantantibus Umbra: Studi su Virgilio e Cornelio Gallo, Bologna. Gale, M. (2000), Virgil on the Nature of Things: The Georgics, Lucretius, and the Didactic Tradition, Cambridge. Galinsky, G. K. (1965), ‘Vergil’s Second Eclogue: Its Theme and Relation to the Eclogue Book’, C&M 26: 161 – 91. Gallavotti, C. (1966), ‘Le Coppe Istoriate di Teocrito e di Virgilio’, PP 21: 421 – 36. Garnett, R. (1888), ‘On the Date of Calpurnius Siculus’, JP 16: 216 – 9. Garson, R. W. (1971), ‘Theocritean Elements in Virgil’s Eclogues’, CQ 21: 188 – 203. Garson, R. W. (1974), ‘The Eclogues of Calpurnius. A Partial Apology’, Latomus 33: 668 – 72.

Bibliography

349

Gatz, B. (1967), Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen, Hildesheim. Gawantka, W. (1975), ‘Zu Vergils neunter Ekloge’ in Cobet, J., Leimbach, R., and Neschke-Hentschke, A. B. (eds.) Dialogos. F r Harald Patzer zum 65. Geburtstag von seinen Freunden und Sch lern,Wiesbaden, 163 – 76. Gercke, A. (1887), ‘Alexandrinische Studien’, RhM 42: 590 – 626. Giangrande, G. (1968), ‘Théocrite, Simichidas et les Thalysies’, AC 37: 491 – 533. Giarratano, C. (1930), ‘Calpurnio Siculo’, Enciclopedia Italiana 8: 463. Giarratano, C. (1943), Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica. Tertium Edidit Einsidlensia Quae Dicuntur Carmina, Iteratis Curis Adiecit C. Giarratano, Turin. Gibson, B. (2004), ‘Song Contests in Calpurnius Siculus’, PVS 25: 1 – 14. Gibson, B. (2006), Statius: Silvae 5, Oxford. Giesecke, A. L. (1993), ‘The Influence of Lucretius on the Bucolic, Heroic Epic, Satiric, and Lyric Poetry’, HSPh 95: 412 – 3. Gifford, T. (1999), Pastoral, London. Gifford, T. (2006), ‘Post-Pastoral as a Tool for Ecocriticism’ in Skoie, M. and Velázquez, S. B. (eds.) Pastoral and the Humanities: Arcadia Re-inscribed, Exeter, 14 – 24. Glaeser, C. E. (1842), Calpurnii Siculi Eclogae, Göttingen. Glei, R. F. (1991), Der Vater der Dinge: Interpretationen zur politischen, literarischen und kulturellen Dimension des Krieges bei Vergil, Trier. Gnilka, C. (1974), ‘Die Tiere im hölzernen Amphitheater Neros. Wort- und Versinterpolation bei Calpurnius Siculus’, WS 8: 124 – 53. Goldhill, S. (1987), ‘An Unnoticed Allusion in Theocritus and Callimachus’, ICS 12: 1 – 6. Goldhill, S. (1991), The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature, Cambridge. Gotoff, H. C. (1967), ‘On the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil’, Philologus 111: 66 – 79. Gow, A. S. F. (1952), Theocritus II, Cambridge. Gowers, E. (1993), The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature, Oxford. Gowers, E. (1994), ‘Persius and the Decoction of Nero’ in Elsner, J. and Masters, J. (eds.) Reflections of Nero: Culture, History and Representation, Chapel Hill, 131 – 50. Grant, M. (2004), ‘Continuity in Pastoral: Plants and Food in Virgil’, PVS 25: 125 – 34. Grant, W. L. (1965), Neo-Latin Literature and the Pastoral, Chapel Hill. Gray-Fow, M. J. G. (1988), ‘The Wicked Stepmother in Roman Literature and History: An Evaluation’, Latomus 47: 741 – 57. Greg, W.W. (1906), Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama, London. Green, P. (1990), Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, Berkeley. Green, R. P. H. (1996), ‘Octavian and Vergil’s Eclogues’, Euphrosyne 24: 225 – 36.

350

Bibliography

Green, S. J. (2009), ‘The Horse and the Serpent: A Vergilian Perspective on the Final Eclogue of Calpurnius Siculus’, Vergilius 55: 55 – 67. Griffin, M. T. (1984), Nero: The End of a Dynasty, London. Griffin, J. (1992), ‘Theocritus, the Iliad, and the East’, AJPh 113: 189 – 211. Griffin, J. (1992a), ‘Homer, Pastoral, and the Near East’, SIFC 10: 552 – 76. Griffiths, F. T. (1980), ‘The Structure and Style of the Short Epics of Catullus and Vergil’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 2: 123 – 37. Grillo, A. (1971), Poetica e Critica Letteraria nelle Bucoliche di Virgilio, Naples. Grimal, P. (1948), ‘La Ve Eglogue et la Culte de César’ in Mlanges d’ Archologie et d’ Histoire Charles Picard, Rev. Arch. ser. 6. 30: 406 – 19. Grimal, P. (1978), Le Lyrisme  Rome, Paris. Groag, E. (1897), ‘C. Calpurnius Piso’, RE 3.1: 1377 – 9. Guerrini, R. (1973), ‘Vos coryli testes. Struttura e Canto nella V Ecloga di Virgilio’, RAL 28: 683 – 94. Gustin, R. (1947), ‘Le Printemps chez les Poètes Latins’, LEC 15: 323 – 30. Gutzwiller, K. J. (1991), Theocritus’ Pastoral Analogies:The Formation of a Genre, Madison. Gutzwiller, K. J. (1996), ‘The Evidence for Theocritean Poetry Books’ in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) Hellenistica Groningana 2: Theocritus, Groningen, 119 – 48. Haber, J. (1994), Pastoral and the Poetics of Self–Contradiction. Theocritus to Marvell, Cambridge. Hagen, H. (1871), ‘Zur Erklärung und Kritik der beiden bukolischen Novitäten aus Einsiedeln’, JKPh 17: 139 – 52. Halperin, D. M. (1983), Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry, New Haven. Halperin, D. M. (1983a), ‘The Forebears of Daphnis’, TAPA 113: 183 – 200. Hardie, P. (1986), Virgil’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium, Oxford. Hardie, P. (1998), Virgil, Oxford. Hardie, P. (2002), Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion, Cambridge. Hardie, P. (2006), ‘Cultural and Historical Narratives in Virgil’s Eclogues and Lucretius’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 275 – 300. Hardie, P. (2009), Lucretian Receptions. History, the Sublime, Knowledge, Cambridge. Hardy, R. B. (1990), ‘Vergil’s Epitaph for Pastoral: Remembering and Forgetting in Eclogue 9’, SyllClass. 2: 29 – 38. Harmon, D. P. (1986), ‘Tibullus and the Rural Festival’, ANRW II. 16.3: 1943 – 55. Harrison, S. J. (1998), ‘The Lark Ascending: Corydon, Corydon (Vergil, Ecl. 7.70)’, CQ 48: 310 – 1. Harrison, S. J. (2007), Generic Enrichment in Vergil and Horace, Oxford. Hathorn, R.Y. (1961), ‘The Ritual Origin of Pastoral’, TAPA 92: 228 – 38. Haupt, M. (1875), ‘De Carminibus Bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani’ in Mauricii Hauptii Opuscula I, Leipzig, 358 – 406.

Bibliography

351

Heaney, S. (2008), ‘Eclogues in extremis: On the Staying Power of Pastoral’ in Volk, K. (ed.) Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Vergil’s Eclogues, Oxford, 245 – 60. Heinze, R. (1923), ‘Virgil Bucolica VII 41 – 44’, Hermes 58: 112. Hellegouarc’h, J. (1964), Le Monosyllable dans l’ Hexamtre Latin: Essai de Mtrique Verbale, Paris. Henderson, J. (1998), ‘Vergil’s Third Eclogue: How Do You Keep an Idiot in Suspense?’, CQ 48: 213 – 28. Henderson, J. (1998a), ‘Virgil, Eclogue 9: Valleydiction’, PVS 23: 149 – 76. Hendry, M. (1995), ‘When Goats Look Askance: An Animal-Husbandry Joke in Virgil (Ecl. 3.8 – 9)’, LCM 20: 51 – 2. Herrmann, L. (1930), ‘Sur les Bucoliques d’ Einsiedeln’ in Mlanges Paul Thomas, Bruges, 432 – 9. Herrmann, L. (1952), ‘Les Pseudonymes dans les Bucoliques de Calpurnius Siculus’, Latomus 11: 27 – 44. Herrmann, L. (1973), ‘L’Aspect Primitif de l’Oeuvre de T. Calpurnius Siculus’, Latomus 32: 359 – 63. Heslin, P. J. (1997), ‘The Scansion of Pharsalia: (Catullus 64.37; Statius, Achilleid 1.152; Calpurnius Siculus 4.101)’, CQ 47: 588 – 93. Heyworth, S. J. (1994), ‘Some Allusions to Callimachus in Latin Poetry’, MD 33: 51 – 79. Heyworth, S. J. (2005), ‘Pastoral’ in Harrison, S. J. (ed.) A Companion to Latin Literature, Oxford, 148 – 58. Highet, G. (1974), ‘Performances of Vergil’s Bucolics’, Vergilius 20: 24 – 5. Hill, D. E. (1992), Ovid Metamorphoses V-VIII, Warminster. Himmelmann-Wildschütz, N. (1972), ‘Nemesians erste Ekloge’, RhM 115: 342 – 56. Hinds, S. (1983), ‘Carmina Digna: Gallus P.Qasr Ibrı˜m 6 – 7 Metamorphosed’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 4: 43 – 54. Hinds, S. (1987), The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse, Cambridge. Hinds, S. (1998), Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge. Hirsch, E. D. (1967), Validity in Interpretation, New Haven. Hofmann, H. (1985), ‘Ein Aratpapyrus bei Vergil’, Hermes 113: 468 – 80. Horsfall, N. M. (1993), ‘Cleaning Up Calpurnius’, CR 43: 267 – 70. Horsfall, N. M. (1995), A Companion to the Study of Virgil, Leiden. Horsfall, N. M. (1997), ‘Criteria for the Dating of Calpurnius Siculus’, RFIC 125: 166 – 96. Hubaux, J. (1927), Le Ralisme dans les Bucoliques de Virgile, Liège. Hubaux, J. (1927a), ‘Le Vers Initial des Églogues’, RBPh 6: 603 – 16. Hubaux, J. (1930), Les Thmes Bucoliques dans la Posie Latine, Brussels. Hubaux, J. (1930a), ‘Sénèque et Calpurnius Siculus’ in Mlanges Paul Thomas. Receuil de Mmoires Concernant la Philologie Classique, Bruges, 451 – 73. Hubaux, J. and Hicter, M. (1949), ‘Le Fouilleur et le Trésor’, RIDA 2: 425 – 37.

352

Bibliography

Hubbard, T. K. (1998), The Pipes of Pan: Intertextuality and Literary Filiation in the Pastoral Tradition from Theocritus to Milton, Ann Arbor. Hübner, U. (1968), Elegisches in der Aeneis, Giessen. Hunter, R. L. (1985), The New Comedy of Greece and Rome, Cambridge. Hunter, R. L. (1999), Theocritus: A Selection (Idylls 1,3,4,6,7,10,11 and 13), Cambridge. Hunter, R. L. (2006), The Shadow of Callimachus: Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome, Cambridge. Hutchinson, G. O. (1988), Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford. Jachmann, G. (1922), ‘Die dichterische Technik in Vergils Bukolika’, NJb 49: 101 – 20. Jacoby, F. (1905), ‘Zur Entstehung des römischen Elegie’, RhM 60: 38 – 105. Jauss, H. R. (1982), Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, Minneapolis. Jennison, G. (1922), ‘Polar Bears at Rome’, CR 36: 73. Jennison, G. (1937), Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome, Manchester. Jenkyns, R. (1989), ‘Virgil and Arcadia’, JRS 79: 26 – 39. Jenkyns, R. (1998), Virgil’s Experience: Nature and History: Times, Names, and Places, Oxford. Joly, D. (1974), ‘La Bucolique au Service de l’Empire: Calpurnius Interprète de Virgile’ in L’ Idology de l’ Imprialisme Romain, Paris, 42 – 65. Jönsson, A. (1981), ‘Three Notes on the Eclogues of Nemesianus’, Eranos 79: 47 – 55. Kaibel, G. (1882), ‘Sententiarum Liber II’, Hermes 17: 408 – 24. Kambylis, A. (1965), Die Dichterweihe und Ihre Symbolik. Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius, Heidelberg. Kappelmacher, A. (1929), ‘Vergil und Theokrit’, WS 47: 87 – 101. Karakasis, E. (2005), Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy, Cambridge. Karakasis, E. (2005a), ‘Totum ut te faciant, Fabulle, nasum: Catullus’ XIII Reconsidered’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 12: 97 – 114. Karanika, A. (2006), ‘Agonistic Poetics in Virgil’s Third Eclogue’ in Skoie, M. and Velázquez, S. B. (eds.) Pastoral and the Humanities: Arcadia Re-inscribed, Exeter, 107 – 14. Katz, J. T. and Volk, K. (2006), ‘Erotic Hardening and Softening in Vergil’s Eighth Eclogue’, CQ 56: 169 – 74. Keene, C. H. (1912), Review of Giarratano, C. (1910), Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica, Naples, CR 26: 96 – 8. Keene, C. H. (1969), The Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus and M. Aurelius Olympius Nemesianus, London. Kegel-Brinkgreve, E. (1990), The Echoing Woods: Bucolic and Pastoral from Theocritus to Wordsworth, Amsterdam. Kelly, S. T. (1977), ‘The Gallus Quotation in Vergil’s Tenth Eclogue’, Vergilius 23: 17 – 20. Kennedy, D. F. (1987), ‘Arcades ambo: Virgil, Gallus, and Arcadia’, Hermathena 143: 47 – 59. Kennedy, D. F. (1993), The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy, Cambridge. Kenney, E. J. (1983), ‘Virgil and the Elegiac Sensibility’, ICS 8: 44 – 59.

Bibliography

353

Kermode, F. (1952), English Pastoral Poetry: From the Beginnings to Marvel, London. Kettemann, R. (1977), Bukolik und Georgik. Studien zu ihrer Affinitt bei Vergil und spter, Heidelberg. Kidd, D. A. (1964), ‘Imitation in the Tenth Eclogue’, BICS 11: 54 – 64. Klinger, F. (1967), Virgil. Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis, Zurich. Kohler, P. (1940), ‘Contribution à une Philosophie des Genres’, Helikon 2: 135 – 47. Köhnken, A. (1984), ‘‘Sola…tua carmina’ (Vergil, Ecl. 8,9 f.)’, WJA 10: 77 – 90. Kölblinger, G. (1971), Einige Topoi bei den lateinischen Liebesdichtern, Vienna. Kollmann, E. D. (1973), ‘Die Stimme Vergils in seinen Eklogen’, StudClas 15: 69 – 85. Korenjak, M. (2003), ‘Tityri sub persona: Der antike Biographismus und die bukolische Tradition’, A&A 49: 58 – 79. Korzeniewski, D. (1966), ‘Die ‘panegyrische Tendenz’ in den Carmina Einsidlensia’, Hermes 94: 344 – 60. Korzeniewski, D. (1971), Hirtengedichte aus neronischer Zeit, Darmstadt. Korzeniewski, D. (1972), ‘Die Eklogen des Calpurnius Siculus als Gedichtbuch’, MH 29: 214 – 6. Korzeniewski, D. (1974), ‘Néron et la Sibylle’, Latomus 33: 921 – 5. Korzeniewski, D. (1976), Hirtengedichte aus sptrçmischer und karolingischer Zeit, Darmstadt. Korzeniowki, G. S. (1998), Verskolometrie und hexametrische Verskunst rçmischer Bukoliker, Göttingen. Kowara, M. J. (1995), ‘Elisions in Virgil’s Fifth Eclogue’, Vergilius 41: 61 – 2. Kraffert, H. (1883), Beitrge zur Kritik und Erklrung lateinischer Autoren, Aurich. Kraggerud, E. (2006), ‘Textual and Exegetical Issues in Vergil’s Fifth and Seventh Eclogues’, SO 81: 29 – 57. Kraggerud, E. (2008), ‘Transpositions in the Bucolics? (On Ecl. 7.53 – 60)’, PVS 26: 105 – 10. Krautter, K. (1992), ‘Lucan, Calpurnius Siculus und Nero’, Philologus 136: 188 – 201. Krevans, N. (1983), ‘Geography and the Literary Tradition in Theocritus 7’, TAPA 113: 201 – 20. Kroll, W. (1924), Studien zum Verstndnis der rçmischen Literatur, Stuttgart. Kühn, J. H. (1958), ‘Die Thalysien Theokrits’, Hermes 86: 40 – 79. Küppers, J. (1985), ‘Die Faunus-Prophezeiung in der 1. Ekloge des Calpurnius Siculus’, Hermes 113: 340 – 61. Küppers, J. (1989), ‘Tityrus in Rom: Bemerkungen zu einem vergilischen Thema und seiner Rezeptionsgeschichte’, ICS 14: 33 – 47. La Bua, G. (1999), L’ Inno nella Letteratura Poetica Latina, San Severo. La Penna, A. (1981), ‘Lettura della Terza Bucolica’ in Gigante, M. (ed.) Lecturae Vergilianae i: Le Bucoliche, Naples, 131 – 69. La Penna, A. (1985), ‘Indovinelli’ in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, Rome, 948 – 50. Lackner, M. (1996), ‘Überlegungen zur Rahmenhandlung der dritten Ekloge Nemesians’, RhM 139: 41 – 52. Lana, I. (1965), La Poesia nell’ Et di Nerone, Turin.

354

Bibliography

Lana, I. (1998), ‘Il Principato di Nerone’ in Lana, I. and Maltese, E. V. (eds.) Storia della Civilt Letteraria Greca e Latina, vol. II, Dall’ Ellenismo all’ Et di Traiano, Turin, 819 – 33. Landolfi, L. (2009), ‘L’ Effemeride ‘Bucolica’: Calpurnio Siculo e i Giochi dell’ Intertestualità (Saggio di Commento alla V Ecloga)’ in Landolfi, L. and Oddo, R. (eds.) Fer Propius Tua Lumina; Giochi Intertestuali nella Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Bologna, 89 – 128. Langholf, V. (1990), ‘Vergil-Allegorese in den Bucolica des Calpurnius Siculus’, RhM 133: 350 – 70. Latte, K. (1960), Rçmische Religionsgeschichte, Munich. Lawall, G. (1967), Theocritus’ Coan Pastorals: A Poetry Book, Washington. Leach, E. W. (1973), ‘Corydon Revisited: An Interpretation of the Political Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus’, Ramus 2: 53 – 97. Leach, E. W. (1974), Vergil’s Eclogues. Landscapes of Experience, Ithaca, NY. Leach, E. W. (1975), ‘Neronian Pastoral and the World of Power’ in Boyle, A. J. (ed.) Ancient Pastoral: Ramus Essays on Greek and Roman Pastoral Poetry, Berwick, 204 – 30. Leclercq, R. (1996), Le Divin Loisir: Essai sur les Bucoliques de Virgile, Brussels. Lee, G. (1977), ‘A Reading of Virgil’s Fifth Eclogue’, PCPhS 23: 62 – 70. Lee, G. (1994), Propertius: The Poems, Oxford. Lee, M. O. (1989), Death and Rebirth in Virgil’s Arcadia, Albany, NY. Legrand, P. E. (1898), tude sur Thocrite, Paris. Lembach, K. (1970), Die Pflanzen bei Theokrit, Heidelberg. Leo, F. (1903), ‘Vergils erste und neunte Ecloge’, Hermes 38: 1 – 18. Lerner, L. (1972), The Use of Nostalgia: Studies in Pastoral Poetry, London. Levi, M. A. (1949), Nerone e i suoi Tempi, Milan. Levi, P. (1966), ‘The Dedication to Pollio in Virgil’s Eighth Eclogue’, Hermes 94: 73 – 9. Levi, P. (1998), Virgil: His Life and Times, London. Lindsell, A. (1937), ‘Was Theocritus a Botanist?’, G&R 6: 78 – 93. Lipka, M. (2001), Language in Vergil’s Eclogues, Berlin. Loesch, S. (1909), Die Einsiedler Gedichte: Eine literar-historische Untersuchung, Tübingen. Loew, E. (1896), ber die beiden bukolischen Gedichte des Codex Einsidlensis, Progr., Vienna. Lohse, G. (1966), ‘Die Kunstauffassung im VII Idyll Theokrits und das Programm des Kallimachos’, Hermes 94: 413 – 25. Loupiac, A. (2003), ‘Notula Vergiliana: les Coupes d’ Alcimédon (Buc. III, 34 – 47), Emblèmes des Interrogations de Virgil?’, BAGB 2003: 130 – 5. Loupiac, A. (2006), ‘Notula Vergiliana II: Les Métamorphoses d’ un Adynaton. Sur Quelques Vers des Bucoliques I et IX’, BAGB 2006: 142 – 7. Lucas, H. (1900), ‘Recusatio’ in Festschrift f r Johannes Vahlen zum siebenzigsten Geburtstag, Berlin, 317 – 33. Luck, G. (1966), ‘Zur Deutung von Theokrits Thalysien’, MH 23: 186 – 9. Luck, G. (1983), ‘Besuch in Rom’ in Händel, P. and Meid, W. (eds.) Festschrift f r Robert Muth zum 65. Geburtstag am 1. Januar 1981 dargebracht von Freun-

Bibliography

355

den und Kollegen, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 22, Innsbruck, 231 – 6. Lucke, C. (1982), P. Ovidius Naso. Remedia Amoris: Kommentar zu Vers. 397 – 814, Bonn. Luiselli, B. (1958), ‘L’ Identificazione del Melibeo di Nemesiano e la Data di Composizione della 1 Ecloga’, Maia 10: 189 – 208. Luiselli, B. (1960), ‘Note su Calpurnio Siculo’, AFLC 28: 135 – 53. Luiselli, B. (1963), ‘L’Apocolocyntosis Senecana e la Prima Bucolica di Calpurnio’, A&R 8: 44 – 52. Luther, A. (2002), Historische Studien zu den Bucolica Vergils, Vienna. MacDonald, J. S. (2003), ‘Dueling Contests: Theocritus and Vergil’s Third and Seventh Eclogues’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 11: 199 – 207. MacDonald, J. S. (2005), ‘Structure and Allusion in Idyll 2 and Eclogue 8’, Vergilius 51: 12 – 31. Maciejczyk, A. (1907), De Carminum Einsidlensium Tempore et Auctore, Greifswald. Mackie, N. (1989), ‘Urbanity in a Roman Landscape: the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus’, Landscape Research 14 / 1: 9 – 14. Mahr, A. (1964), Untersuchungen zur Sprache in den Eklogen des Calpurnius Siculus, Vienna. Maes, Y. (2008), ‘Neronian Literature and the Grotesque’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 14: 313 – 23. Magnelli, E. (2006), ‘Bucolic Tradition and Poetic Programme in Calpurnius Siculus’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 467 – 77. Malaspina, E. (1986), ‘Il Tuscum Iurgium nell’ Amebeo Virgiliano (Ecl. 3.104 – 7)’, RCCM 28: 7 – 15. Maltby, R. (1976), A Comparative Study of the Language of Plautus and Terence, Diss., Cambridge. Maltby, R. (2002), Tibullus: Elegies. Text, Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. Mandolfo, C. (1986), ‘Sulla Datazione dei Carmina Einsidlensia’, Orpheus 7: 1 – 20. Mankin, D. (1988), ‘The Addressee of Virgil’s Eighth Eclogue: A Reconsideration’, Hermes 116: 63 – 76. Mankin, D. (1995), Horace. Epodes, Cambridge. Manni, E. (1938), ‘La Leggenda dell’ Età dell’ Oro nella Politica dei Cesari’, A&R 6: 108 – 20. Marchiò, M. (1957), ‘Un Componimento Georgico sulle Orme di Virgilio: l’ Egloga V di Calpurnio Siculo’, GIF 10: 301 – 14. Marconi, G. (1961), ‘Il Proemio degli Annales di Ennio’, RCCM 3: 224 – 45. Marinelli, P. V. (1971), Pastoral, London. Martin, B. (1996), ‘Calpurnius Siculus’ ‘New’ Aurea Aetas’, AC 39: 17 – 38. Martin, B. (2003), ‘Calpurnius Siculus: The Ultimate Imperial ‘Toady’?’ in Basson, A. F. and Dominik W. J. (eds.) Literature, Art, History: Studies on

356

Bibliography

Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W. J. Henderson, Frankfurt am Main, 73 – 90. Martindale, C. (1997), ‘Green Politics: The Eclogues’ in Martindale, C. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Cambridge, 107 – 24. Marx, L. (1964), The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America, Oxford. Martini, L. R. (1986), ‘Influssi Lucreziani nelle Bucoliche di Virgilio’, CCC 7: 297 – 331. Maurach, G. (2008), ‘Über das Hirtengespräch in Vergils Ecl. 3’, Philologus 152: 230 – 45. Maury, P. (1944), ‘Le Secret de Virgile et l’ Architecture des Bucoliques’, Lettres d’ Humanit 3: 71 – 147. Mayer, M. (1974), ‘Quis fuit alter: En torno a Vergil ecl. 3.40’, Durius 2: 397 – 411. Mayer, R. (1980), ‘Calpurnius Siculus: Technique and Date’, JRS 70: 175 – 6. Mayer, R. (1982), ‘Neronian Classicism’, AJPh 103: 305 – 18. Mayer, R. (1983), ‘Missing Persons in the Eclogues’, BICS 30: 17 – 30. Mayer, R. (2005), ‘Creating a Literature of Information in Rome’ in Horster, M. and Reitz, C. (eds.) Wissensvermittlung in dichterischer Gestalt, Stuttgart, 227 – 41. Mayer, R. (2005a), ‘The Early Empire: AD 14 – 68’ in Harrison, S. J. (ed.) A Companion to Latin Literature, Oxford, 58 – 68. Mayer, R. (2006), ‘Latin Pastoral after Virgil’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 451 – 66. Mazzarino, A. (1983), ‘Dittico Calpurniano’, NAFM 1: 401 – 11. McKeown, J. C. (1989), Ovid, Amores, vol. II. A Commentary on Book One, Leeds. McKeown, J. C. (1998), Ovid, Amores, vol. III. A Commentary on Book Two, Leeds. Meban, D. (2009), ‘Virgil’s Eclogues and Social Memory’, AJPh 130: 99 – 130. Merfeld, B. (1999), Panegyrik – Parnese – Parodie? Die Einsiedler Gedichte und Herrscherlob in neronischer Zeit, Trier. Merkelbach, R. (1956), ‘BOUJOKIASTAI (Der Wettgesang der Hirten)’, RhM 99: 97 – 133. Merli, E. (1997),‘Nkiom 1m k]swgi jated}salem. Sulla Tradizione Latina di un Motivo Callimacheo’, Maia 49: 385 – 90. Merone, E. (1967), Innovazioni Linguistiche in Calpurnio Siculo, Naples. Messina, C. (1975), T. Calpurnio Siculo, Padua. Miller, J. F. (1983), ‘Ennius and the Elegists’, ICS 8: 277 – 95. Miller, J. F. (1997 – 8), ‘Lucretian Moments in Ovidian Elegy’, CJ 92: 384 – 98. Mizera, S. M. (1982), ‘Lucretian Elements in Menalcas’ Song, Eclogue 5’, Hermes 110: 367 – 71. Molinos-Tejada, T. (1990), Los Dorismos del Corpus Bucolicorum, Amsterdam. Momigliano, A. (1944), ‘Literary Chronology of the Neronian Age’, CQ 38: 96 – 100. Monella, P. (2009), ‘Pastori, Patroni, Dèi. Personaggi Politici e loro Inclusione nel Mondo Bucolico (Tibullo, Virgilio, Calpurnio Siculo)’ in Landolfi, L.

Bibliography

357

and Oddo, R. (eds.) Fer Propius Tua Lumina; Giochi Intertestuali nella Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Bologna, 67 – 87. Monteleone, C. (1994), Palaemon: L’ Ecloga III di Virgilio: Lusus Intertestuale ed Esegesi, Naples. Morelli, C. (1914), ‘Nerone Poeta e i Poeti intorno a Nerone’, Athenaeum 2: 117 – 52. Morford, M. (1985), ‘Nero’s Patronage and Participation in Literature and the Arts’, ANRW II. 32.3: 2003 – 31. Muecke, F. (1975), ‘Virgil and the Genre of Pastoral’, AUMLA 44: 169 – 80. Murgatroyd, P. (1991), Tibullus I, London. Murgatroyd, P. (1994), Tibullus: Elegies II, Oxford. Narducci, E. (1979), La Provvidenza Crudele. Lucano e la Distruzione dei Miti Augustei, Pisa. Nauta, R. R. (1990), ‘Gattungsgeschichte als Rezeptionsgeschichte am Beispiel der Entstehung der Bukolik’, A&A 36: 116 – 37. Nauta, R. R. (2006), ‘Panegyric in Virgil’s Bucolics’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, T. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 301 – 32. Navarro-Antolín, F. (1996), Lygdamus: Corpus Tibullianum III 1 – 6, Leiden. Néraudau, J. P. (1983), ‘Asinius Pollion et la Poésie’, ANRW II. 30.3: 1732 – 50. Nethercut, W. R. (1967), ‘Trees and Identity in Aeneid viii and Bucolic ii’, Vergilius 13: 16 – 27. Nethercut, W. R. (1968), ‘Vergil and Horace in Bucolic 7’, CW 62: 93 – 8. Nethercut, W. R. (1970), ‘Menalcas’ Answer: The Hyacinth in Bucolic 3, 106 – 7’, CJ 65: 248 – 54. Neumeister, C. (1975), ‘Vergils IX. Ekloge im Vergleich zu Theokrits 7 Idyll’ in Cobet, J., Leimbach, R., and Neschke-Hentschke, A. B. (eds.) Dialogos: F r Harald Patzer zum 65 Geburtstag von seinen Freunden und Sch lern, Wiesbaden, 177 – 85. Newlands, C. E. (1987), ‘Urban Pastoral. The Seventh Eclogue of Calpurnius Siculus’, ClAnt 6: 218 – 31. Newlands, C. E. (2002), Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire, Cambridge. Newman, J. K. (1967), The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry, Brussels. Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. (1970), A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book I, Oxford. Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. (1978), A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book 2, Oxford. Nisbet, R. G. M. and Rudd, N. (2004), A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book 3, Oxford. Nisetich, F. (2001), The Poems of Callimachus, New York. Norden, E. (1927), P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis Buch VI, Darmstadt. Northrup, M. D. (1983), ‘Vergil on the Birth of Poetry. A Reading of the Fourth Eclogue’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 3: 111 – 25. Novelli, A. (1980), Il Linguaggio di Calpurnio Siculo, Lecce. Nussbaum, G. (1984), ‘Vergilian Artistry: a Note on Eclogues 8.37 – 41’, LCM 9: 94 – 5.

358

Bibliography

Ogawa, M. (1983), ‘Virgil’s Sixth Eclogue and Theocritus’, JCS 31: 66 – 81. O’Hara, J. J. (1996), True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay, Ann Arbor. Ostrand, K. D. (1984), Aspects of the Reign of the Emperor Domitian, Diss., Missouri-Columbia. Otis, B. (1964), Virgil. A Study in Civilised Poetry, Oxford. Ott, U. (1969), Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten, Hildesheim. Page, T. E. (1898), P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica et Georgica, London. Paladini, M. L. (1956), ‘Osservazioni a Calpurnio Siculo’, Latomus 15: 330 – 46, 521 – 31. Paladini, M. L. (1956a), ‘Il Compianto di Melibeo in Nemesiano’, AC 25: 319 – 30. Papanghelis, T. D. (1989), ‘About the Hour of Noon: Ovid Amores 1.5’, Mnemosyne 42: 54 – 61. Papanghelis, T. D. (1991), ‘Catullus and Callimachus on Large Women. A Reconsideration of c.86’, Mnemosyne 44: 372 – 86. Papanghelis, T. D. (1994), J poigtijµ t_m Qyla_ym “Meyt]qym”, Athens. Papanghelis, T. D. (1995), )p¹ tµ boujokijµ eqtop_a stµm pokitijµ oqtop_a, Athens. Papanghelis, T. D. (1997), ‘Winning on Points: About the Singing – Match in Virgil’s Seventh Eclogue’, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 8: 144 – 57. Papanghelis, T. D. (1999), ‘Eros Pastoral and Profane: On Love in Virgil’s Eclogues’ in Morton Braund, S. and Mayer, R. (eds.) Amor:Roma. Love & Latin Literature, Cambridge, 44 – 59. Papanghelis, T. D. (2006), ‘Friends, Foes, Frames and Fragments: Textuality in Virgil’s Eclogues’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 369 – 402. Paratore, E. (1954), Virgilio, Firenze. Paschalis, M. (1994), ‘Intonsi Montes, Cynthius and Aracynthus: Apollo and the Poetics of Mountain Landscape in Virgil’s Eclogues’ in Maltezou, Chr., Detorakis, Th., and Charalambakis, Chr. (eds.) QODYMIA, Til^ stom L. I. Lamo}saja, vol. II, Rethymnon, 437 – 49. Paschalis, M. (1995), ‘Virgil’s Sixth Eclogue and the Lament for Bion’, AJPh 116: 617 – 21. Paschalis, M. (1996), ‘Pqovgte_a jai Enous_a stg Katimij^ Boujokij^ Po_gsg tgr Jkasij^r Peqi|dou’ in Kyrtatas, D. I. (ed.) Ieqo_ K|coi : Pqovgte_er jai Lamte_er stgm Ioudazj^, tgm Ekkgmij^ jai tg Qylazj^ Aqwai|tgta, Athens, 135 – 51. Pearce, J. B. (1990), The Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus, San Antonio, Texas. Pearce, J. B. (1992), The Eclogues of Nemesian and the Einsiedeln Manuscript, San Antonio, Texas. Pearce, T. E. V. (1970), ‘A Note on Ille ego qui quondam…’, CQ 20: 335 – 8. Perkell, C. G. (1990), ‘On Eclogue 1.79 – 83’, TAPA 120: 171 – 81. Perkell, C. G. (1996), ‘The ‘Dying Gallus’ and the Design of Eclogue 10’, CPh 91: 128 – 40.

Bibliography

359

Perkell, C. G. (2001), ‘Vergil Reading his Twentieth-Century Readers: A Study of Eclogue 9’, Vergilius 47: 64 – 88. Perutelli, A. (1976), ‘Natura Selvatica e Genere Bucolico’, ASNP 6: 763 – 98. Perret, J. (1961), Virgile. Les Bucoliques, Paris. Perret, J. (1982), ‘Daphnis Pâtre et Héros: Perspectives sur un Âge d’ Or’, REL 60: 216 – 33. Petersmann, G. (1977), ‘Zum Wettstreit der Hirten in Vergils III Ekloge’, Hermes 105: 202 – 8. Petrovitz, W. (2002 – 3), ‘Towards a Grammar of Allusion: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Vergil’s Seventh Bucolic’, CW 96: 259 – 70. Pichon, R. (1966), Index Verborum Amatoriorum, Hildesheim. Pfister, F. (1924), ‘Epiphanie’, RE Suppl. 4: 277 – 323. Poggioli, R. (1975), The Oaten Flute: Essays on Pastoral Poetry and the Pastoral Ideal, Cambridge Mass. Porro, A. (1988), ‘L’ Adonidis Epitaphium di Bione e il Modello Teocriteo’, Aevum Antiquum 1: 211 – 21. Posch, S. (1969), Beobachtungen zur Theokritnachwirkung bei Vergil, Innsbruck. Pöschl, V. (1964), Die Hirtendichtung Vergils, Heidelberg. Postgate, J. P. (1902), ‘The Comet of Calpurnius Siculus’, CR 16: 38 – 40. Postgate, J. P. (1905), ‘Pharsalia Nostra’, CR 19: 257 – 60. Powell, B. B. (1976), ‘Poeta Ludens: Thrust and Counter-Thrust in Eclogue 3’, ICS 1: 113 – 21. Pretagostini, R. (1984), ‘La Rivalità tra Comata e Lacone: una Paideia Disconosciuta (Theocr. 5.35 – 43, 116 – 9)’, MD 13: 137 – 41. Puelma, M. (1960), ‘Die Dichterbegegnung in Theokrits Thalysien’, MH 17: 144 – 64. Pulbrook, M. (1978), ‘Octavian and Virgil’s Fifth Eclogue’, Maynooth Review (Maynooth, Co. Kildare St. Patrick’s College) 4, 2: 31 – 40. Putnam, M. C. J. (1965), ‘The Riddle of Damoetas (Virgil, Ecl. 3.104 – 5)’, Mnemosyne 18: 150 – 4. Putnam, M. C. J. (1970), Virgil’s Pastoral Art. Studies in the Eclogues, Princeton. Radke, A. E. (1972), ‘Zu Calpurnius und Nemesian’, Hermes 100: 615 – 23. Raios, D. (2001), G L]kissa jai o Kuj\mhqypor, Ioannina. Ramsey, J. T. and Licht, A. L. (1997), The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar’s Funeral Games, Atlanta. Raynaud, E. (1931), Poetae Minores, Paris. Reed, J. D. (1997), Bion of Smyrna: The Fragments and the Adonis, Cambridge. Reed, J. D. (2004), ‘A Hellenistic Influence in Aeneid IX’, Faventia 26: 27 – 42. Reed, J. D. (2006), ‘Continuity and Change in Greek Bucolic between Theocritus and Virgil’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 209 – 34. Reeson, J. (2001), Ovid Heroides 11, 13 & 14 – A Commentary, Leiden. Reeve, M. D. (1978), ‘The Textual Tradition of Calpurnius and Nemesianus’, CQ 28: 223 – 38. Reeve, M. D. (1986), ‘Accounts of the Textual Tradition of Calpurnius and Nemesianus’ in Reynolds, L. D. (ed.) Texts and Transmission, Oxford, 37 – 8.

360

Bibliography

Reitzenstein, E. (1931), ‘Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos’ in Festschrift Richard Reitzenstein zum 2 April 1931 dargebracht, Leipzig, 23 – 69. Reitzenstein, R. (1893), Epigramm und Skolion: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der alexandrinischen Dichtung, Giessen. Richter, A. (1970), Virgile: La Huitime Bucolique, Paris. Robertson, F. (1966 – 7), ‘Allegorical Interpretations of Virgil’, PVS 6: 34 – 45. Rogers, R. S. (1953), ‘The Neronian Comets’, TAPA 84: 237 – 49. Rohde, G. (1925), De Vergilii Eclogarum Forma et Indole, Berlin. Rohde, G. (1963), Studien und Interpretationen zur antiken Literatur, Religion und Geschichte, Berlin. Romano, D. (1981), ‘Il Verso Finale della Seconda Ecloga Einsidlense’, Orpheus 2: 124 – 30. Römer, F. (1994), ‘Mode und Methode in der Deutung panegyrischer Dichtung der nachaugusteischen Zeit’, Hermes 122: 95 – 113. Ronconi, A. (1981), ‘Lettura della Nona Bucolica’ in Gigante, M. (ed.) Lecturae Vergilianae i: Le Bucoliche, Naples, 319 – 45. Rosati, G. (2002), ‘Muse and Power in the Poetry of Statius’ in Spentzou, E. and Fowler, D. (eds.) Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature, Oxford, 229 – 51. Rose, H. J. (1942), The Eclogues of Vergil, Berkeley. Rose, H. J. (1954), ‘Some Second Thoughts on Vergil’s Eclogues’, Mnemosyne 7: 57 – 68. Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1966), ‘Alcman’s Partheneion I Reconsidered’, GRBS 7: 321 – 59. Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1969), The Green Cabinet. Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric, Berkeley. Ross, D. O. (1969), Style and Tradition in Catullus, Cambridge Mass. Ross, D. O. (1975), Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome, Cambridge. Rossi, L. E. (1971), ‘Mondo Pastorale e Poesia Bucolica di Maniera: l’ Idillio Ottavo del Corpus Teocriteo’, SIFC 43: 5 – 25. Rossi, L. E. (1971a), ‘I Generi Letterari e le loro Leggi Scritte e non Scritte nelle Letterature Classiche’, BICS 18: 69 – 94. Rossi, L. E. (1971b), ‘Vittoria e Sconfitta nell’ Agone Bucolico Letterario’, GIF 23: 13 – 24. Rossi, L. E. (2000), ‘Origine e Finalità del Prodotto Pseudepigrafo. Pseudepigrafia Preterintenzionale nel Corpus Theocriteum. L’ Idillio VIII’, AION (filol.) 22: 231 – 61. Rossi, L. E. (2000a), ‘La Letteratura Alessandrina e il Rinnovamento dei Generi Letterari della Tradizione’ in Pretagostini, R. (ed.) La Letteratura Ellenistica: Problemi e Prospettive di Ricerca: Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Univesit di Roma ‘Tor Vergata’, 29 – 30 Aprile 1997, Rome, 149 – 61. Rudd, N. (1976), Lines of Enquiry: Studies in Latin Poetry, Cambridge. Rudd, N. (1996), ‘Virgil’s Contribution to Pastoral’, PVS 22: 53 – 77. Ruggeri, E. (2002), ‘Calpurnio Siculo e l’ Età di Nerone’, InvLuc. 24: 201 – 43. Rumpf, L. (1996), Extremus Labor. Vergils 10 Ekloge und die Poetik der Bukolika, Göttingen.

Bibliography

361

Rundin, J. (2003), ‘The Epicurean Morality of Vergil’s Bucolics’, CW 96: 159 – 76. Rupprecht, K. (2004), ‘Warten auf Menalcas: der Weg des Vergessens in Vergils neunter Ekloge’, A&A 50: 36 – 61. Sallmann, K. (1995), ‘Poesie und Magie: Vergils 8. Ekloge’, ZAnt 45: 287 – 302. Sallmann, K. (1998), ‘Wer singt Damons Lied? Noch einmal zu Vergils 8. Ekloge’ in Radke, A. E. (ed.) Candide Iudex. Beitrge zur augusteischen Dichtung. Festschrift f r Walter Wimmel zum 75 Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 275 – 81. Salvatore, A. (1949), ‘De Laudibus Pisonis cum Panegyrico Messallae atque Calpurni Bucolicis Comparatis’, RFIC 27: 177 – 90. Sandbach, F. H. (1933), ‘Victum Frustra Contendere Thyrsim’, CR 47: 216 – 9. Sarpe, G. (1819), Quaestiones Philologicae, Progr., Rostock. Saunders, T. (2006), ‘‘Using Green Words’ or ‘Abusing Bucolic Ground’’ in Skoie, M. and Velázquez, S. B. (eds.) Pastoral and the Humanities: Arcadia Re-inscribed, Exeter, 3 – 13. Saunders, T. (2008), Bucolic Ecology: Virgil’s Eclogues and the Environmental Literary Tradition, London. Sauter, F. (1934), Der rçmische Kaiserkult bei Martial und Statius, Stuttgart. Savage, J. J. H. (1954), ‘The Riddle in Virgil’s Third Eclogue’, CW 47: 81 – 3. Savage, J. J. H. (1958), ‘The Art of the Third Eclogue of Virgil (55 – 111)’, TAPA 89: 142 – 58. Savage, J. J. H. (1963), ‘The Art of the Seventh Eclogue of Vergil’, TAPA 94: 248 – 67. Scafoglio, G. (2006), ‘Le Figure Femminili nelle Bucoliche di Virgilio’, Euphrosyne 34: 65 – 76. Scaliger, J. C. (1561), Poetices Libri Septem, Lyon. Schäfer, A. (2001), Vergils Eklogen 3 und 7 in der Tradition der lateinischen Streitdichtung, Frankfurt am Main. Scheda, G. (1965), ‘Zur Datierung der Ilias Latina’, Gymnasium 72: 303 – 7. Scheda, G. (1966), ‘Planeten und Sphärenmusik in der neronischen Kaiserideologie’, Hermes 94: 381 – 4. Scheda, G. (1967), ‘Nero und der Brand Roms’, Historia 16: 111 – 5. Scheda, G. (1967a), ‘Eine übersehene Recusatio-Form im Carmen Einsidlense I’, MH 24: 52 – 6. Scheda, G. (1969), Studien zur bukolischen Dichtung der neronischen Epoche, Bonn. Schenkl, H. (1885), Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica, Leipzig. Schetter, W. (1975), ‘Nemesians Bucolica und die Anfänge der spätlateinischen Dichtung’ in Gnilka, C. and Schetter, W. (eds.) Studien zur Literatur der Sptantike, Bonn, 1 – 43. Schlatter, G. (1941), Theokrit und Kallimachos, Zurich. Schmid, W. (1953), ‘Panegyrik und Bukolik in der neronischen Epoche: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der Carmina Einsidlensia’, BJ 153: 63 – 96. Schmidt, E. A. (1969), ‘Hirtenhierarchie in der antiken Bukolik?’, Philologus 113: 183 – 200. Schmidt, E. A. (1972), Poetische Reflexion: Vergils Bukolik, Munich.

362

Bibliography

Schmidt, E. A. (1972a), ‘Poesia e Politica nella Nona Egloga di Virgilio’, Maia 24: 99 – 119. Schmidt, E. A. (1987), Bukolische Leidenschaft oder ber antike Hirtenpoesie, Frankfurt am Main. Schmidt, E. A. (1998 – 9), ‘Ancient Bucolic Poetry and Later Pastoral Writing: Systematic and Historical Reflections’, IJCT 5: 226 – 51. Schönbeck, G. (1962), Der locus amoenus von Homer bis Horaz, Heidelberg. Schöpsdau, K. (1974), ‘Motive der Liebesdichtung in Vergils dritter Ekloge’, Hermes 102: 268 – 300. Schröder, B. (1991), Carmina non quae nemorale resultent: Ein Kommentar zur 4. Ekloge des Calpurnius Siculus, Frankfurt am Main. Schubert, C. (1998), Studien zum Nerobild in der lateinischen Dichtung der Antike, Stuttgart. Schultz, C. E. (2003), ‘Latet anguis in herba: A Reading of Vergil’s Third Eclogue’, AJPh 124: 199 – 224. Schwinge, E. R. (1974), ‘Theokrits ‘Dichterweihe’ (Id. 7)’, Philologus 118: 40 – 58. Segal, C. P. (1965 – 1999), ‘Tamen cantabitis, Arcades: Exile and Arcadia in Eclogues One and Nine’ in Hardie, P. (ed.) Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors I, London, 172 – 202. Segal, C. P. (1967), ‘Vergil’s Caelatum Opus: An Interpretation of the Third Eclogue’, AJPh 88: 279 – 308. Segal, C. P. (1977), ‘Thematic Coherence and Levels of Style in Theocritus’ Bucolic Idylls’, WS 11: 35 – 68. Segal, C. P. (1981), Poetry and Myth in Ancient Pastoral: Essays on Theocritus and Virgil, Princeton. Segal, C. P. (1987), ‘Alphesiboeus’ Song and Simaetha’s Magic: Virgil’s Eighth Eclogue and Theocritus’ Second Idyll’, CB 14: 167 – 85. Seng, H. (1999), Vergils Eklogenbuch. Aufbau, Chronologie und Zahlenverhltnisse, Hildesheim. Serrao, G. (1971), Problemi di Poesia Alessandrina. I, Studi su Teocrito, Rome. Shackleton-Bailey, D. R. (1978), ‘Notes on Minor Latin Poetry’, Phoenix 32: 305 – 25. Shotter, D. (2008), Nero Caesar Augustus: Emperor of Rome, Harlow. Simon, Z. L. (2007), ‘Frange, puer, calamos… Bukolische Allegorie, Panegyrik und die Krise des Dichterberufs in der vierten Ekloge des T. Calpurnius Siculus’, AAntHung 47: 43 – 98. Simon, Z. L. (2008), ‘Non Vulgare Genus: Ekphrasis, Literarisches Gedächtnis und Gattungsspezifische Innovation in der sechsten Ecloge des T. Calpurnius Siculus’, ACD 43: 57 – 70. Skiadas, A. D. (1975), ‘Periuria amantum. Zur Geschichte und Interpretation eines Motivs der augusteischen Liebesdichtung’ in Monumentum Chiloniense. Kieler Festschrift f r E. Burck, Amsterdam, 400 – 18. Skoie, M. (2006), ‘City and Countryside in Virgil’s Eclogues’ in Rosen, R. M., and Sluiter, I. (eds.) City, Countryside, and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity, Leiden, 297 – 325. Skutsch, F. (1897), ‘T. Calpurnius Siculus’, RE 3.1: 1401 – 6.

Bibliography

363

Skutsch, F. (1901), Aus Vergils Fr hzeit, Leipzig. Skutsch, F. (1906), Gallus und Vergil, Leipzig. Skutsch, F. (1905), ‘Einsiedlensia Carmina’, RE 5: 2115 – 6. Skutsch, O. (1956), ‘Zu Vergils Eklogen’, RhM 99: 193 – 201. Skutsch, O. (1965), Review of Pöschl, V. (1964), Die Hirtendichtung Virgils, Heidelberg, Gnomon 37: 162 – 9. Skutsch, O. (1971), ‘The Singing Matches in Virgil and in Theocritus and the Design of Virgil’s Book of Eclogues’, BICS 18: 26 – 9. Slater, N. W. (1994), ‘Calpurnius and the Anxiety of Vergilian Influence: Eclogue I’, SyllClass. 5: 71 – 8. Slater, N. W. (1994a), ‘From Harena to Cena: Trimalchio’s Capis (Sat. 52. 1 – 3)’, CQ 44: 549 – 51. Slavvit, D. R. (1991), Virgil, New Haven. Smith, P. L. (1965), ‘Lentus in umbra: A Symbolic Pattern in Vergil’s Eclogues’, Phoenix 19: 298 – 304. Smith, P. L. (1970), ‘Vergil’s avena and the Pipes of Pastoral Poetry’, TAPA 101: 497 – 510. Solodow, J. B. (1977), ‘Poeta impotens: The Last Three Eclogues’, Latomus 36: 757 – 71. Solodow, J. B. (1986), ‘Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: Study of Poetic Word Order’, HSPh 90: 129 – 53. Soraci, G. (1982), ‘Echi Virgiliani in Calpurnio Siculo’ in Atti del Convegno di Studi Virgiliani, Pescara 23 – 25 Ottobre 1981, vol. II, San Gabriele, 114 – 8. Soraci, G. (1997), ‘Crocale’ in D’ Alessandro, P. (ed.) LOUSA. Scritti in Onore di G. Morelli, Edizioni e Saggi Universitari di Filologia Classica. Fuori Se. 5, Bologna, 315 – 21. Soubiran, J. (1966), L’ Elision dans la Posie Latine, Paris. Spadaro, M. D. (1969), Sulle Egloghe Politiche di Tito Calpurnio Siculo, Catania. Spencer, D. (2005), ‘Lucan’s Follies: Memory and Ruin in a Civil-War Landscape’, G&R 52: 46 – 69. Springer, C. (1983), ‘Aratus and the Cups of Menalcas. A Note on Eclogue 3.42’, CJ 79: 131 – 4. Stabryla, S. (1990), ‘La Poésie et la Réalité (Essai sur les Bucoliques de Virgile)’, Eos 78: 173 – 81. Stanzel, K. H. (1989), ‘Bukolische Dreiecksverhältnisse. Zu Calpurnius und Nemesians zweiter Ekloge’, WJA 15: 183 – 201. Starr, R. J. (1995), ‘Vergil’s Seventh Eclogue and its Readers: Biographical Allegory as an Interpretative Strategy in Antiquity and Late Antiquity’, CPh 90: 129 – 38. Stégen, G. (1953), ‘La Neuvième Bucolique de Virgile’, LEC 21: 331 – 42. Stégen, G. (1955), tude sur Cinq Bucoliques de Virgile (1, 2, 4, 5, 7), Namur. Steinmetz, P. (1968), ‘Eclogen Vergils als dramatische Dichtungen’, A&A 14: 115 – 25. Stephens, S. A. (2006), ‘Ptolemaic Pastoral’ in Fantuzzi, M. and Papanghelis, Th. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden, 91 – 117. Stroh, W. (1999), ‘Vom Faunus zum Faun: Theologische Beiträge von Horaz und Ovid’ in Schubert, W. (ed.) Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe f r Mi-

364

Bibliography

chael von Albrecht zum 65 Geburtstag, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 100, vol. II, Frankfurt am Main, 559 – 612. Sullivan, J. P. (1985), Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero, Ithaca. Sullivan, M. B. C. (2002), ‘Et eris mihi magnus Apollo: Divine and Earthly Competition in Virgil’s Seventh Eclogue’, Vergilius 48: 40 – 54. Summers, W. C. (1920), The Silver Age of Latin Literature: From Tiberius to Trajan, London. Svennung, J. (1935), Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache, Uppsala. Tandoi, V. (1981), ‘Lettura dell’ Ottava Bucolica’ in Gigante, M. (ed.) Lecturae Vergilianae i: Le Bucoliche, Naples, 265 – 317. Tarán, S. L. (1985), ‘EISI TQIWES : An Erotic Motif in the Greek Anthology’, JHS 105: 90 – 107. Tarrant, R. J. (1978), ‘The Addressee of Virgil’s Eighth Eclogue’, HSPh 82: 197 – 9. Theiler, W. (1956), ‘Zu den Einsiedler Hirtengedichten’, SIFC 27 – 8: 565 – 77. Thibodeau, P. (2006), ‘The Addressee of Vergil’s Eighth Eclogue’, CQ 56: 618 – 23. Thill, A. (1979), Alter ab illo: Recherches sur l’ Imitation dans la Posie Personelle  l’ poque Augustenne, Paris. Thomas, R. F. (1983), ‘Vergil’s Ekphrastic Centerpieces’, HSPh 87: 175 – 84. Thomas, R. F. (1988), Virgil Georgics, Volume 2: Books III-IV, Cambridge. Thomas, R. F. (1996), ‘Genre through Intertextuality: Theocritus to Virgil and Propertius’ in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) Hellenistica Groningana 2: Theocritus, Groningen, 227 – 46. Thomas, R. F. (1998), ‘Voice, Poetics and Virgil’s Sixth Eclogue’ in Jasanoff, J., Melchert, H. C., and Oliver, L. (eds.) Mir Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, Innsbruck, 669 – 76. Thomas, R. F. (1999), Reading Virgil and His Texts: Studies in Intertextuality, Ann Arbor. Thomas, R. F. (2007), ‘Horace and Hellenistic Poetry’ in Harrison, S. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Horace, Cambridge, 50 – 62. Thome, G. (2000), ‘Vergil als alexandrinischer Dichter’, Philologus 144: 90 – 115. Toliver, H. E. (1971), Pastoral Forms and Attitudes, Berkeley. Torlone, Z. M. (2002), ‘From Daphnis to Gallus: the Metamorphosis of the Genre in the Eclogues’, NECJ 29: 204 – 21. Toynbee, J. M. C. (1942), ‘Nero Artifex: the Apocolocyntosis Reconsidered’, CQ 36: 83 – 93. Townend, G. B. (1969), ‘Some Problems of Punctuation in the Latin Hexameter’, CQ 19: 330 – 44. Townend, G. B. (1973), ‘The Literary Substrata to Juvenal’s Satires’, JRS 63: 148 – 60. Townend, G. B. (1980), ‘Calpurnius Siculus and the Munus Neronis’, JRS 70: 166 – 74.

Bibliography

365

Tracy, S. V. (1982), ‘Sepulcrum Bianoris: Virgil Eclogues 9.59 – 61’, CPh 77: 328 – 30. Tracy, S. V. (1990), ‘Theocritean Bucolic and Virgilian Pastoral: Commentary on Alpers’, Arethusa 23: 49 – 57. Tracy, S. V. (2003), ‘Palaemon’s Indecision’, in Thibodeau, P. and Haskell, H. (eds.) Being There Together. Essays in Honor of Michael C. J. Putnam on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Afton, MN, 66 – 77. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, I. (1966), ‘Werden und Wesen der bukolischen Poesie’, AAntHung 14: 1 – 31. Tromaras, L. (2001), J\toukkor : O Meyteqij|r Poigt^r tgr Q~lgr, Thessaloniki. Trovati, G. (2001), ‘Gli Ultimi Sviluppi della Poesia Bucolica Greca’, Acme 54: 35 – 72. Tugwell, J. (1963), ‘Virgil, Eclogue 9.59 – 60’, CR 13: 132 – 3. Tzounakas, S. (2006), ‘Rusticitas versus Urbanitas in the Literary Programmes of Tibullus and Persius’, Mnemosyne 59: 111 – 28. Vahlen, J. (1908), Opuscula Academica ii, Leipzig. Vallat, D. (2006), ‘Phénomènes de Réécriture dans l’Onomastique du Genre Bucolique’, Interfrences Ars Scribendi 4 (= http://ars-scribendi.ens- lsh.fr/article.php3?id_article=36&var_affichage=vf). Van Hook, LaRue (1917), ‘Xuwq|tgr D t¹ Xuwq|m’, CPh 12: 68 – 76. Van Sickle, J. (1967), ‘The Unity of the Eclogues: Arcadian Forest, Theocritean Trees’, TAPA 98: 491 – 508. Van Sickle, J. (1975), ‘Epic and Bucolic (Theocritus, Id. VII; Virgil, Ecl. 1)’, QUCC 19: 45 – 72. Van Sickle, J. (1976), ‘Theocritus and the Development of the Conception of Bucolic Genre’, Ramus 5: 18 – 44. Van Sickle, J. (1978), The Design of Virgil’s Bucolics, Rome. Van Sickle, J. (1981), ‘Commentaria in Maronem Commenticia: A Case History of Bucolics Misread’, Arethusa 14: 17 – 34. Van Sickle, J. (1984), ‘Dawn and Dusk as Motifs of Opening or Closure in Heroic and Bucolic Epos (Homer, Apollonius, Theocritus, Vergil)’ in Atti del Convegno di Studi Virgiliani, vol. I, Milan, 124 – 47. Van Sickle, J. (1986), Poesia e Potere: ll Mito Virgilio, Bari. Van Sickle, J. (1992), A Reading of Virgil’s Messianic Eclogue, New York. Van Sickle, J. (2000), ‘Virgil vs. Cicero, Lucretius, Theocritus, Plato, and Homer: Two Programmatic Plots in the First Bucolic’, Vergilius 46: 21 – 58. Van Tieghem, P. (1938), ‘La Question des Genres Littéraires’, Helikon 1: 95 – 101. Vaughn, J. W. (1981), ‘Theocritus Vergilianus and Liber Bucolicon’, Aevum 55: 47 – 68. Vara, J. (1992), ‘The Sources of Theocritean Bucolic Poetry’, Mnemosyne 45: 333 – 44. Verdière, R. (1952), ‘À l’ Ombre des ‘Charmes’ d’ Einsiedeln’, RBPh 30: 799 – 804.

366

Bibliography

Verdière, R. (1954), T. Calpurnii Siculi De laude Pisonis et Bucolica et M. Annaei Lucani De laude Caesaris Einsiedlensia Quae Dicuntur Carmina, Brussels. Verdière, R. (1956 – 7), ‘Sur un Point de Messianisme dans les Synoptiques et chez Calpurnius’, RUB 9: 89 – 92. Verdière, R. (1966), ‘La Bucolique Post-Virgilienne’, Eos 56: 161 – 85. Verdière, R. (1968), ‘La Date de l’Action de la Première Bucolique Calpurnienne’, AC 37: 534 – 9. Verdière, R. (1971), ‘Notes de Lecture’ in Bardon, H. and Verdière, R. (eds.) Vergiliana. Recherches sur Virgile, Leiden, 375 – 85. Verdière, R. (1974), Prolgomnes  Nemesianus, Leiden. Verdière, R. (1977), ‘Qui est le Mélibée des Bucoliques de Calpurnius?’, RPh 51: 15 – 21. Verdière, R. (1985), ‘Le Genre Bucolique à l’ Époque de Néron: les Bucolica de T. Calpurnius Siculus et les Carmina Einsidlensia. État de la Question et Prospectives’, ANRW II. 32.3: 1845 – 1924. Verdière, R. (1987), ‘À Quelle Époque Vécut T. Calpurnius Siculus?’ in Neronia III, Actes du IIIe Colloque International de la Socit Internationale d’tudes Nroniennes (Varenna – Juin 1982), Rome, (= CRDAC 12 [1982 – 3]), 125 – 38. Verdière, R. (1992), ‘Calpurnius Siculus et le Culte de la Personnalité’, Helmantica 43: 31 – 40. Verdière, R. (1993), ‘Calpurnius, en Fin d’Analyse…’, Helmantica 44: 349 – 98. Veremans, J. (1964 – 5), ‘La Métrique en fonction de la Compréhension des Textes Latins (Virgile, VIIe Bucolique)’, JE 37: 35 – 57. Veremans, J. (1969), lments Symboliques dans la IIIe Bucolique de Virgile. Essai d’ Interprtation, Brussels. Verity, A. (2002), Theocritus. Idylls, Oxford. Veyne, P. (1980), ‘L’ Histoire Agraire et la Biographie de Virgile dans les Bucoliques I et IX’, RPh 54: 233 – 57. Vinchesi, M. A. (1991), ‘La Terza Ecloga di Calpurnio Siculo fra Tradizione Bucolica e Tradizione Elegiaca’, Prometheus 17: 259 – 76. Vinchesi, M. A. (1992), ‘Funzione del Tecnicismo nella Poesia Bucolica di Calpurnio Siculo’ in Mazzini, I. (ed.) Civilt Materiale e Letteratura nel Mondo Antico, Università degli Studi di Macerata. Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia 64: Atti di Convegni 19, Macerata, 149 – 61. Vinchesi, M. A. (1996), Calpurnio Siculo. Egloghe, Milan. Vinchesi, M. A. (1998), ‘Il Canto d’ Amore nella Seconda Egloga di Nemesiano e l’ ‘Officina Poetica’ di un Tardo Autore Bucolico’ in Pieri, M. P. (ed.) Percorsi della Memoria 1, Florence, 133 – 43. Vinchesi, M. A. (2002), ‘Calpurnio Siculo e i Nuovi Percorsi della Poesia Bucolica’ in Castagna, L. and Vogt-Spira, G. (eds.) Pervertere: sthetik der Verkehrung. Literatur und Kultur neronischer Zeit und ihre Rezeption, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 151, Munich, 139 – 51. Vinchesi, M. A. (2008), ‘Il Certamen Mancato: per un’ Analisi Tematica della VI Egloga di Calpurnio Siculo’ in Arduini, P., Audano, S., Borghini, A., Cavarzere, A., Mazzoli, G., Paduano, G., and Russo, A. (eds.) Studi Offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli, vol. II, Rome, 543 – 57.

Bibliography

367

Vinchesi, M. A. (2009), ‘Spigolature Calpurniane’ in Landolfi, L. and Oddo, R. (eds.) Fer Propius Tua Lumina; Giochi Intertestuali nella Poesia di Calpurnio Siculo, Bologna, 143 – 54. Vinchesi, M. A. (2009a), ‘Tematiche e Modalità Inniche nella IV Egloga di Calpurnio Siculo’, Paideia 64: 571 – 88. Volpilhac, P. (1975), Nmsien, Oeuvres: Texte tabli et Traduit, Paris. Volpilhac, P. (1998), ‘État Présent des Recherches sur Némésien’, ANRW II. 34.4: 3175 – 8. Vozza, P. (1993), ‘L’ Ars Poetica di Calpurnio-Coridone ed il Giudizio sull’ Età Neroniana’, BStudLat. 23: 282 – 308. Vozza, P. (1994), ‘Un Silenzio Eloquente (Quid tacitus…? Calpurnio Ecl. 4.1 – 4)’, BStudLat. 24: 71 – 92. Wagenvoort, H. (1956), Studies in Roman Literature, Culture and Religion, Leiden. Waite, S. V. F. (1972), ‘The Contest in Vergil’s Seventh Eclogue’, CPh 67: 121 – 3. Walter, H. (1988), Studien zur Hirtendichtung Nemesians, Stuttgart. Walters, J. (1997), ‘Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in Roman Thought’ in Hallett, J. P. and Skinner, M. B. (eds.) Roman Sexualities, Princeton, 29 – 43. Waszink, J. H. (1974), Biene und Honig als Symbol des Dichters und der Dichtung in der griechisch-rçmischen Antike, Opladen. Watson, P. A. (1995), Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny and Reality, Leiden. Weinstock, S. (1971), Divus Iulius, Oxford. Wendel, C. (1901), De Nominibus Bucolicis, Leipzig. Wendel, H. (1933), Arkadien im Umkreis bukolischer Dichtung in der Antike und in der franzçsischen Literatur, Giessen. Whitaker, R. (1988), ‘Did Gallus Write ‘Pastoral’ Elegies?’, CQ 38: 454 – 8. White, H. (1980), Essays in Hellenistic Poetry, London. White, H. (1999), ‘A Singing Contest in Calpurnius Siculus’, QUCC 62: 149 – 51. Williams, C. A. (1999), Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, Oxford. Williams, F. (1971), ‘A Theophany in Theocritus’, CQ 21: 137 – 45. Williams, F. (1978), Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo. A Commentary, Oxford. Williams, G. (1968), Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry, Oxford. Williams, G. (1978a), Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire, Berkeley. Williams, G. (1987), ‘A look at Theocritus Idyll 7 through Virgil’s Eyes’, Hermathena 143: 107 – 20. Williams, G. (1991), ‘Conversing after Sunset: A Callimachean Echo in Ovid’s Exile Poetry’, CQ 41: 169 – 77. Williams, H. J. (1986), The Eclogues and Cynegetica of Nemesianus, Leiden. Williams, R. (1973), The Country and the City, London. Wilkinson, L. P. (1966 – 1999), ‘Virgil and the Evictions’ in Hardie, P. (ed.) Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors I, London, 39 – 43. Wills, J. (1993), ‘Vergil’s cuium pecus’, Vergilius 39: 3 – 11.

368

Bibliography

Wills, J. (1998), ‘Divided Allusion: Virgil and the Coma Berenices’, HSPh 98: 277 – 305. Wilson, E. F. (1948), ‘Pastoral and Epithalamium in Latin Literature’, Speculum 23: 35 – 57. Wimmel, W. (1960), Kallimachos in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit, Wiesbaden. Wimmel, W. (1970), ‘Apollo – Paupertas. Zur Symbolik von Berufungsvorgängen bei Properz, Horaz und Calpurnius’ in Wimmel, W. (ed.) Forschungen zur rçmischen Literatur. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von K. B chner, vol. II, Wiesbaden, 291 – 7. Winterbottom, M. (1976), ‘Virgil and the Confiscations’, G&R 23: 55 – 9. Wiseman, T. P. (1982), ‘Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian Civil War’, JRS 72: 57 – 67. Wlosok, A. (1983 – 4), ‘Originalität, Kreativität und Epigonentum in der spätrömischen Literatur’ in Actes du VIIe Congrs de la F.I.E.C., vol. II, Budapest, 251 – 65. Wojaczyk, G. (1969), Daphnis: Untersuchungen zur griechischen Bukolik, Meisenheim am Glan. Wormell, D. E. W. (1960), ‘The Riddles in Virgil’s Third Eclogue’, CQ 10: 29 – 32. Wormell, D. E. W. (1969), ‘The Originality of the Eclogues: sic parvis componere magna solebam’ in Dudley, D. R. (ed.) Virgil. Studies in Latin Literature and Its Influence, London, 1 – 26. Wright, J. (1983 – 1999), ‘Virgil’s Pastoral Programme: Theocritus, Callimachus and Eclogue I’ in Hardie, P. (ed.) Virgil: Critical Assessments of Classical Authors I, London, 116 – 71. Wülfing v. Martitz, P. (1970), ‘Zum Wettgesang der Hirten in der siebenten Ekloge Vergils’, Hermes 98: 380 – 2. Yardley, J. C. (1980), ‘Gallus in Eclogue 10: Quotation or Adaptation?’, Vergilius 26: 48 – 51. Zanker, G. (1985), ‘A Hesiodic Reminiscence in Virgil, E. 9.11 – 13’, CQ 35: 235 – 7. Zetzel, J. E. G. (1983), ‘Re-creating the Canon: Augustan Poetry and the Alexandrian Past’, Critical Inquiry 10: 83 – 105. Zetzel, J. E. G. (1984), ‘Servius and Triumviral History in the Eclogues’, CPh 79: 139 – 42. Zucchelli, B. (1995), ‘Il Giuramento di Tirsi: (Verg. Ecl. 7, 41 – 43)’, Paideia 50: 355 – 66.

General Index aberrant 94, 103f., 107 abstinence 170, 219 accusativus Graecus 82, 126, 189 Acontius / Cydippe 113, 134, 181 Adonis 4, 23, 118, 166, 316 adulation 42, 45 adynaton 20, 32, 40, 49, 136, 143 Aegle 223, 257 Aegon 95f., 99f., 103f., 110, 119, 162, 172f. Aeneas 248, 290, 304, 327 Aeneid 100, 140, 169, 226, 257, 273, 285, 294f., 307, 310, 318, 327 Aeschinas 102 aesthetics of deviation 40 Ageanax 96 agrestis 34, 249, 268 agricultural prosperity 264–266, 279, 328 agriculture 31, 45, 52, 170, 178, 187, 264 Alcaeus 67, 69 Alcimedon 88, 91, 94, 235 Alcon 52, 156, 213, 216, 233f., 298, 302f., 312–318, 328 Alexandrian 2, 14, 22, 48, 72, 77, 121, 138, 145, 163 Alexis 54, 61, 97, 103, 190, 216, 229–232, 247, 254, 258, 261, 265, 313, 316, 329, 331f., 334 alienation 61, 101, 134, 137, 140f., 143, 199, 228, 235, 240, 252–254, 275, 282f., 319 allegory 15, 28, 47, 56, 137, 168f., 176f., 202, 255, 274, 281f., 291 Alphesiboeus 103, 125, 132, 141, 144–151, 172, 186, 219, 235, 301, 313, 336 alternate 105, 288, 303, 325

Amaryllis 61, 80, 101, 103, 116f., 144f., 147, 194, 232, 252, 305, 325, 334 ambiguous 9, 43f., 87, 90, 150, 179, 199, 209, 319 amoebaean 1, 4, 12f., 31, 35, 50–52, 132, 153, 193, 213–215, 220, 226, 232, 234, 238, 280, 282, 296 amor 55f., 69, 77, 80, 84, 102f., 120, 123f., 133, 135, 139f., 147, 204, 226f., 234, 248, 297, 315, 322–324, 328–330, 333, 335 amphitheatre 39, 41, 270 Amyntas 47, 103, 113–115, 156, 218, 239, 247, 249f., 259, 261, 263, 265–269, 274, 277f., 323 angry father 88, 108, 250, 301 animal 16, 30, 39, 45, 49, 61, 87f., 93, 100, 108, 117–120, 126, 143, 157, 160, 162f., 169f., 200, 204, 217, 230, 274, 277, 282, 305, 308, 314, 329 animal and plant comparisons 19 animal terms 144 Anser 199 Antimachus 77 Antipater 67, 158 antrum 155, 157, 160, 262, 305, 325 Aphrodite 12, 23, 25, 59f., 66, 79, 158, 170 Apollo 19, 22f., 34, 36, 40, 43, 48, 50, 59, 64–69, 71, 74, 77–79, 84–86, 89, 101, 106, 111f., 126, 128, 159, 171f., 182, 218, 220–224, 246, 254, 257, 260f., 264, 272, 274, 279, 281, 286–292, 295, 312f., 316, 318 appeal to the rising day 134 appetite 162, 310 apple 17, 24, 30, 113f., 138

370

General Index

Aratus 34, 72, 91, 96, 101, 111, 121, 130, 145, 167 Arcadia 54, 96, 133–136 archaism 50, 185, 188, 208–210 Ariadne 136 Aristophanes 62, 114 Armenian tigers 160f., 170 arrow 95, 104, 139, 192 Artemidorus 26 artifact / art 5, 13, 22, 24, 34, 46, 80, 93f., 125, 180, 199, 211, 214, 222, 224, 240, 247f., 258, 282, 284–286, 295 Assyrian river 59, 67, 246, 270 Astacus 43, 214–217, 219, 222–227, 229–235, 237f., 298 astronomical 91, 121, 254, 260 Astylus 40, 213, 323 Atalanta 61, 115 atellana 108, 121 baccar 30, 64–66, 265 Bacchus 12, 14, 19, 48, 56, 66, 68f., 71, 78f., 85f., 89f., 111, 126, 135, 159–161, 170–172, 182, 255, 267, 292, 312 barbarism 162 bark 40, 181, 188, 268, 324 basket weaving 39, 49, 306 Battus 15, 87, 96, 99, 111 bay 17, 79, 149 beauty 29, 74f., 103, 154, 166, 233, 236, 281, 287, 303f., 317f., 328, 330–332, 337 bee 16f., 23, 30, 84, 175, 196, 219f. beech 39, 49, 88, 156, 180, 188f., 227, 237, 241, 253f., 284f., 303, 322, 324f. belatedness 37f., 217 Berenice 90 Bianor 205 bickering 87, 95, 100, 109 Bion 4, 20–26, 35, 58, 96, 101f., 119, 159, 162, 167, 191, 194, 234, 305, 309, 316, 328, 334, 337, 339 [Bion] 4, 20–22, 25, 135 bird 16f., 25, 30, 116, 165, 217, 332 birthday 116, 171

bitter 60, 75f., 123f., 196, 203 ‘bottom’ 97f. bow and arrows 95, 104 Brasilas 205f. bucolic – colouring 3, 13, 23 – community 19, 102, 117, 162, 190 – facade 321 – figure 22, 156, 275 – history 184 – ideal 89, 132f. – idyll 11, 16, 115, 162, 167, 177, 181, 200, 260, 329 – landscape 21f., 60, 62, 164, 189, 206 – life 23, 40, 178, 283 – musical organs 48 – norm 103 – order 274 – outlook 28 – pantheon 40, 182, 218, 312 – pedigree 184 – performance 256 – repertoire 314 – scene 144 – scenery 11, 124, 130 – space 12,61,141,143,147,154,189, 193, 201f., 228, 232, 272 – tradition 7f., 11, 13, 24, 27, 41, 48, 50, 94, 104, 107, 112, 163, 178f., 193, 236, 280, 303, 307, 327 – value 7, 88, 242, 267, 318 – veneer 124, 303 – world 6,19,87f.,101,112,122,141, 150, 156, 162, 186, 199, 205, 245, 282, 317 bucolise 13f., 157 bull 16f., 23, 30, 71f., 86, 105, 119f., 162, 219, 230, 257, 330 Caecilius 74, 107, 196 caelatum 88, 90 Caesar 158, 168–171, 174, 176f., 197, 202f., 206, 261–265, 274, 278, 280, 285 Callimachean 9, 13–15, 21, 24f., 32–34, 43, 46, 48, 50f., 56, 59f., 62–64, 66–68, 72, 74–78, 80, 84–86, 89, 91–93, 104–107,

General Index

117–120, 122, 128f., 131f., 138–141, 146f., 151, 155, 160f., 166–168, 174–176, 181, 183, 188, 190, 192f., 198, 200, 203, 210, 220f., 225f., 233, 238, 240f., 245, 248f., 252, 254, 256–258, 268, 270–272, 274, 281f., 284, 291f., 300, 307 Callimachus 15, 24, 32–34, 43, 50, 57, 63, 67f., 72, 74, 76–80, 83–85, 89–91, 104, 113, 118, 121, 131f., 140, 154f., 166, 175, 181–183, 192, 203f., 217, 222, 246, 252, 272, 274, 292 Calpurnius Siculus 9, 10, 35-39, 41, 43-48, 50, 213-221, 224f., 228f., 231, 236-239, 241-249, 251, 260f., 264, 267, 271-276, 278, 280f., 283, 299, 306, 308, 311, 315, 317, 320, 325, 339 Calvus 50, 83, 104, 126, 135 Calypso 155 candidus 67, 74f., 84, 86, 107, 174, 200, 332 Canthus 42 cantores Euphorionis 80 Carinus 46 carmen 77, 107, 146, 155f., 222, 246, 256, 273f., 277, 332 catasterism 171, 182 cattle fertility 196, 264 Catullus 50, 62, 74f., 79, 83, 90, 104f., 107, 109, 118f., 135, 140, 166, 168f., 174, 196, 209f. cave, antrum 154f., 157f., 160, 182, 200, 262, 303, 305, 324f. Cerinthus 116 cheese 17f., 24, 31, 39, 49, 93, 230, 251 Chromis 12, 18, 83, 155 cicada 17, 23, 30, 39, 48, 175, 282, 332 Cicero 80f., 91, 111, 122, 210 Cinna 50, 104, 129, 198 citational 8, 21, 44, 224, 236 city 41, 46, 102f., 134f., 182, 186, 194, 246, 250, 273, 283, 294, 318f., 336

371

clausa puella motif 300, 319 Cleodamus 22 closure 179, 207, 233, 274, 319, 328 cold 57–60, 62, 64, 118, 120, 146f., 149, 334 colloquial 50, 81f., 86, 94f., 106f., 109–111, 120, 151, 173, 185, 188, 208–212, 244, 276, 278 colony 187 Columella 222, 255 Comatas 12, 87, 96f., 99, 112–114, 118, 173 combination of white and pink 304 comedy 14, 20, 42, 88, 95, 98–102, 106–112, 114–117, 120, 122–124, 133f., 142, 145, 173, 187, 194f., 200f., 208–210, 228, 230, 232, 250f., 281f., 286, 300f., 310, 314, 323, 335 conceit 64 confiscation 27, 184, 190f., 195f., 211, 272 coniuctivus 238, 305 coniunx 134f., 149 Conon 89–91 consecratio 168 convening 18, 165 Corpus Tibullianum 68, 267 Corydon 31, 37, 40–43, 54–58, 61f., 64–66, 68–82, 84–87, 96f., 99, 103, 118, 123, 125, 132, 142, 172, 190, 215f., 218, 221, 226, 229–231, 236, 239–262, 264, 267–279, 283, 298, 307, 312–317, 322, 325–327, 329–332, 334 cow 16, 23, 30, 88, 93, 96, 99, 105, 108, 149, 196, 284, 305 cranes 139, 192 Cretan meadows 262 cricket-cage 13, 102, 159, 306 Crocale 215f., 226, 228, 230f., 233, 298 crook 17, 24, 31, 53, 155, 180, 182 crossing of genres 2 cup 13f., 17, 87–94, 123f., 147, 156, 159, 180, 189, 235, 237, 284f., 306 Cynisca 102 Cynthia 58f., 101, 116

372

General Index

Damagetus 161 Damoetas 87f., 91–97, 99f., 105–108, 111–117, 119–121, 123f., 141, 172, 215, 221, 247, 284 Damon 40, 95, 99, 103, 107, 125, 132f., 135, 137–139, 141–146, 148f., 151, 219, 251, 313 dance 16, 61, 172, 262f., 268 Daphne 112 Daphnis 5, 11, 16, 19–21, 23, 25f., 53f., 58, 61, 66, 70–72, 81, 85f., 93, 95, 103f., 106, 108, 116, 136, 139, 142, 144–153, 156–163, 165–179, 181–183, 197, 202f., 206, 223, 226, 232, 235, 264f., 281, 305f., 336f. dawn 40, 130f. deconstruct 1, 3, 27, 128, 186, 270 dedication 126–128, 131f., 152, 168 deductio 135 default 38, 46, 103, 198, 203, 209, 213, 240, 250, 271, 275, 288, 303, 307, 318, 321, 325 Delia 66, 82, 101, 114 Delphis 144 demand for attention 53 Demeter 19, 71, 84, 175, 312 Demetrius 64 de-pastoralise 46, 136, 297, 319, 332 detachment 42, 45, 50, 137, 282 dew 131, 138, 175 diaeresis / caesura 14, 24, 65, 77, 207 Diana 46, 66, 77, 114 Dichterweihe 72, 84, 155, 179, 182, 221f., 257, 285, 295 diction 2, 4, 6f., 19, 26, 28, 32, 37, 43, 45, 47, 50f., 55f., 62, 64f., 70–73, 77, 80–89, 94f., 98–100, 104, 106f., 109–111, 120, 122, 124, 126, 129f., 132, 148, 151, 162, 173, 185, 187f., 190, 196, 200, 206–212, 218, 222, 226, 231f., 235, 237–239, 241, 244, 252, 254, 258f., 262, 267, 275–280, 282–285, 288, 290, 296, 300, 309, 323, 329f., 337 didactic 42, 47, 72, 90f., 130, 150, 205, 209, 254, 260, 283, 289, 292

Diomos 11 Dione 313f. Diphilus 62 disdain 283, 317, 326, 329, 334 dives amator 101, 301, 314 docile young age 253 doctus 74, 107, 292, 321 dog 17, 30, 113f., 150 Donace 216, 230, 233f., 298–300, 304, 306, 308f., 314–317, 319, 325 Donatus 27, 109, 120, 207 donkey 282 Doric 21, 23, 111, 200 Dorylas 235 double allusion 290, 298, 302 draw 53f., 87, 123, 125, 235f., 280 dream 150, 171 DServius 126, 148, 165, 168f., 171, 180, 201f. dulcis 39, 66, 74f., 86, 123, 167, 214, 245f., 256, 270f., 302 durus 59, 138, 140, 148, 160, 301, 328 eagle / dove 11, 17, 30, 114, 191f. Early Latin 63, 76, 82, 207f., 212 eavesdropping 195, 209, 212 echo 5, 29, 39, 49, 102, 206, 235, 241, 251, 275f., 298, 330 ecphrasis 13f., 43, 88, 90, 92, 94, 102, 147, 180, 216 Einsiedeln eclogues 9, 35, 44, 320 Einsiedeln poet 242, 295 elegiac – affinities 133 – allusions 314 – anxiety 104 – appeal 226f., 327 – beloved 324 – bond 312 – catchword 328 – character 133, 149, 216, 230, 324 – colouring 113, 216, 299, 304, 307, 314, 316, 326, 331, 333 – connotations 231 – couplet 21, 25, 53 – defect 35 – development 323 – deviation 297, 336

General Index

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

devotion 313 diction 332 direction 305 discourse 216, 226, 234, 307, 320f., 327f. disposition 190, 232, 234, 297, 302, 308, 313, 316, 329 disruption 318 distress 256, 302, 319 eclogue 334 ethos 316 evolution 114 expression 304, 326 feature 5 feeling 306 genre 5, 25, 115, 133, 145f., 148, 297f., 301f., 305–307, 310, 314, 318f., 321, 323, 326, 328, 330f., 335, 337 grief 304 habit 324 history 103 ideal 85, 318 identity 297, 334, 337 image 302 inclination 330 influence 34, 301, 310 instance 322, 335 intertext 230, 304, 330, 335, 337 intrusion 114, 181, 227, 301, 314, 323, 326f., 329 liaison 301 lines 34 loss 302, 310 love / lover 58, 60, 102f., 123, 142, 151, 232, 234, 300, 306, 309, 312 meaning 311, 333f. mistress 328, 333 mode 35, 324 model 123, 231 mood 236 motif 113, 116, 136, 226, 230, 298, 300, 304f., 314, 324, 327, 334 oeuvre 113 outlook 227, 298, 302, 304, 314, 322 overtones 300, 315 pain 306

373

– parallel 327 – passion 9, 35, 61, 102, 234, 297, 302, 305, 307, 311, 317, 319, 322f., 336f. – pattern 215f. – pedigree 115 – picture 327 – plight 305f. – poet 102, 116, 133, 142, 155, 216, 234, 293, 302, 322, 324 – posture 337 – practice 149, 304 – premise 133 – propensities 27 – provenance 311 – puella 304, 334 – pursuits 337 – quotation 329 – reconciliation 311 – register 116, 226 – relationship 148, 301, 308 – reworking 181 – scenery 190 – scorn 315 – sense 328, 330 – sensibilities 228, 230, 302, 329 – separation 314 – setting 228, 297 – situation 194, 305, 327 – slip 326 – state of affairs 299 – suitor 229f., 298 – symptom 309 – tactics 226 – tendencies 315 – theme 309 – topic 113, 311, 319 – transformation 149, 231 – trend 228 – turn 226, 320 – ungratefulness 315 – usage 226, 327, 330 – value 61, 226 – wording 216, 331f. – world 31, 61, 102f., 151, 181, 336 elegy 5, 8–10, 21, 25, 32, 34f., 42, 49f., 58–61, 68, 78, 80, 86, 88, 90, 100–102, 112, 114–116, 124,

374

General Index

131–133, 135, 142, 148, 155, 162, 167f., 181, 187, 201, 216, 219, 228, 232, 248, 293, 297, 302, 307f., 310, 312f., 315f., 318f., 321–324, 333, 337 elision 65, 94, 163, 176, 199 emperor 9, 36, 40–43, 45f., 213, 218, 245f., 248, 253, 260–263, 265f., 268f., 271, 278f., 282, 286f., 290f., 294–296 encomium 41, 46, 111, 130, 154, 156, 178, 195–197, 201, 211, 259f., 279 enmity 87, 118, 213, 293 Ennius 80f., 86, 89, 140, 210 epic 3, 5, 8f., 14, 21, 33–35, 43, 45, 47, 67, 72, 78–81, 86, 89f., 92, 122, 127f., 130–132, 134, 140, 149, 158, 161, 169, 176, 180, 188, 192, 197–199, 209f., 215, 217–219, 221, 241, 245, 248, 255, 257f., 261f., 270, 273, 280, 283, 285, 287–296, 304, 308, 310, 315, 317f., 327, 336 epicedion 165 epigram 21, 26, 41, 54, 67, 72, 82, 90, 102, 114f., 159, 161, 166, 203, 331 epiphany 70f., 154f., 182, 222, 263, 266 epitaphios 4, 22 epithalamium 135 epitome 153, 157, 189 eros 4, 19, 25, 31f., 34, 40, 100, 102, 112, 116, 119, 123, 158, 162, 167, 191, 326, 333, 335 erotic exclusivity 312 erotic poetry 9, 25, 35, 114, 156, 335 erotic triangle 116, 215, 298f. erro 141f., 211, 231, 268, 309f. eternal peace 260 etymology 66, 77, 80, 160, 225 Eudoxus 89, 91 eulogy 8f., 44, 178, 206 Euphorion 87, 121, 193 Euripides 12, 62, 140 evening 40, 108, 233, 274f., 319 evil eye / tongue 64, 78, 120

excellence 19, 105, 111, 117, 127, 153, 180, 221, 228, 236, 248, 286, 295, 303 excerpt 20–22, 25, 194f., 197, 200, 203, 211, 242 exclusus amator 60, 133, 151 excusatio 128 exemplum 141, 301 faginus 227, 237 fagus 29, 49, 188, 227 fastus 335f. fauna 16, 49, 143 Faunus 40f., 48, 160, 180, 218, 268, 284f., 316, 322, 325 ferae 60 festival 118, 171, 228f., 267, 294 fickleness 326 fire 58, 294, 302, 326f. first encounter 137–139 fistula / avena 30f., 39, 46f., 49, 107, 132, 137, 221, 234, 247, 250, 256–259, 264, 276, 284f., 287, 307 fleece 118, 230–232, 264 flock 11, 17f., 24, 26, 30, 40, 42, 49, 54, 57, 60, 70f., 95f., 108, 117, 119, 130f., 141, 225, 231, 233, 251, 254 Flora / flora 16, 39f., 48f., 222–224, 242 flower 23, 29f., 121, 200, 204, 219, 265, 299, 311, 320 flower-picking motif 299 fons / spring 23, 31, 72, 84, 92, 112, 165, 167, 175, 190, 193, 214, 270, 317, 324f. formosus 67, 74f., 79, 85f., 116, 154, 166, 180, 214, 216, 232f., 281f., 296, 298, 314, 317f., 331 formula 109, 130, 207, 248, 290, 309 fowler 4, 25, 217 fragilis 34, 138, 258, 276 framing 2, 8, 20, 154, 157, 200, 247, 297f., 321, 328 fraxinus 29, 80 frigus 59f., 62, 64f., 118f., 131, 146f., 163, 165, 209, 241, 319 frondatio 204f., 225

General Index

fruit 29, 143, 202f., 224, 231f., 237, 265 fugio 327f., 330 furor 43, 305, 323f. Galatea 4, 54, 66–68, 74–77, 79, 101, 113, 115, 134, 164, 200f., 230, 251, 301, 308, 333 Gallus 34f., 58, 61, 69f., 84, 88, 102, 115, 133, 142, 153, 162, 181, 221, 234, 256, 293, 295, 297, 301f., 317, 319, 322–324, 328, 333f., 337 gardener 43, 215, 222f., 227, 235, 237f. generic – adhesion 37, 48 – adoption 206 – agnosticism 1 – allegiance 216 – alteration 7f., 49, 52, 94, 217, 223, 241, 265, 283, 298 – ambivalence 131, 201, 218, 228, 239, 259, 280, 289, 295, 298, 317f. – anxieties 243 – aspiration 241, 244, 320 – association 20, 148, 231 – attitude 148 – attraction 307 – awareness 47, 235 – behaviour 6, 122f., 298 – boundaries 8, 35, 46, 162, 167, 238, 289 – branching out 6, 41, 205, 223 – caveat 7 – change 10, 211 – character 4, 115, 130, 163f., 219, 264 – characterisation 248 – code 26, 308, 338 – community 198 – comprehensiveness 218, 301, 317 – confrontation 26 – constituent 9, 15, 189, 325, 332 – contact 337 – cornerstone 7, 10 – correspondence 133 – crossing 7 – demarcation 1

375

– designation 2 – deviation 6, 8, 31f., 88, 94, 100, 142, 186f., 231, 234, 275 – dialogue 25 – dichotomy 283 – difference 57, 192 – direction 220, 278, 325 – dislocation 9, 11, 41, 61 – disposition 235 – distance 301 – divergence 5 – diversity / diversification 8, 124, 212, 226, 234, 283, 299, 308 – enrichment 6, 35 – estrangement 213, 254 – evolution 35, 318 – expansion 35 – expectation 4, 6, 51f., 124, 213 – experience 166 – experimentation 320 – favourite 224 – feature 10f., 27, 38, 172, 193, 325 – flexibility 197, 216 – fluidity 51, 124, 187, 198, 219, 227, 235, 268, 296, 320 – formation 2, 5–7, 12, 19f., 28 – framework 5, 22 – frustration 34, 51, 200 – function 6, 134 – history 180 – hybridisation 6 – ideal 251 – identity 4, 11, 18, 50f., 96, 168, 190, 224, 268, 310, 319, 331 – idiosyncrasy 188 – implications 34, 156, 190, 195, 198 – ingredients 190 – innovation 50, 237, 265 – interaction 1, 5f., 8, 42, 51f., 111, 218, 308, 315, 321–323, 333, 335, 337 – interest 135 – interplay 10, 49, 218 – interrelation 316 – intrusion 209, 323 – leaning 196, 232f., 313, 321 – literary experience 1

376

General Index

– marker 2, 4f., 7, 10, 17, 28f., 33, 52, 70, 139, 162, 164, 188, 192, 200, 214, 227, 232, 241, 245, 251, 257, 263, 278, 318, 325, 329, 338 – marring 189 – material 8 – movement 31, 41, 102, 194, 211, 270 – norm 6, 112 – novelty 50, 227, 236f., 275, 279, 320 – opposition 34f., 105, 128 – orientation 43, 47, 275, 320, 332, 336 – outlook 2, 8, 37, 46, 122, 185, 212, 234, 236, 249, 280, 315, 322 – pattern 123, 209, 328f., 337 – pollution 8 – polyphony 308 – preference 193, 205, 285 – profile 10, 179, 331 – propensities 156, 199 – properties 156 – purity 51, 204, 207, 212, 279 – quality 200, 225 – realm 35, 50, 100 – redirection 262 – re-evaluation 9, 20, 183, 259, 279, 334 – role 5 – rule 112, 153, 256 – self-awareness 21 – self-consciousness 1, 88, 100 – sensibilities 41, 279 – spectrum 312 – standard 111 – status 112, 201 – structure 2, 5, 336 – tension 10, 178, 243, 293, 297, 321f., 333 – transcendence 6, 8f., 27, 35, 45, 90f., 158, 238, 244f., 249, 253, 258, 263, 267, 269, 271, 289, 296, 318, 323, 325, 338 – transformation 211 – transition 273 – trend 142, 234 – uncertainty 195

– undertones 173, 192, 196 – versatility 202, 231, 318 generically – ambiguous 201 – awry 230 – curious 194 – destabilising factors 167 – diversifying 286, 316 – dodgy 115, 228 – dubious 188, 194, 211, 216, 314, 321 – impeccable 214 – indifferent 142 – neutralised 8 – surprising 240 – traditional / novel 221, 238, 244 – undecided 167 genre 1–14, 16, 19f., 22f., 25–29, 31–35, 37, 40f., 45, 47–49, 51, 58, 70, 75, 80, 87–90, 95, 97–100, 102, 104–108, 110f., 114, 116f., 119f., 122, 124, 127–132, 134f., 137, 140–142, 145, 151f., 154, 156f., 159–161, 163f., 167, 172f., 175–178, 181–183, 186, 188–190, 192, 194–197, 200f., 203, 206, 208–212, 215, 218f., 226, 231, 235f., 240f., 243–245, 247, 249f., 253f., 256, 259–262, 265, 267f., 270, 275, 278f., 284–286, 288f., 293f., 296, 298–300, 302f., 308–310, 312, 318, 320–327, 329, 336f.; see also elegiac genre genre-creation 17 genus grande 9f., 35, 57, 81, 105, 128–130, 135, 152, 174, 192, 196–199, 212, 258, 262, 272f., 282f., 285, 287, 291 genus tenue 10, 35, 57, 61, 68, 81, 105, 128, 135, 152, 164, 166, 175, 197, 240, 246, 268, 271–274, 279, 281f., 285, 287, 292, 296, 302, 312 georgic 5, 31, 42f., 178, 183, 187, 202f., 205, 212, 217, 220, 222–225, 232–236, 238, 250f., 254, 264–267, 278f., 283, 304, 317f.

General Index

Georgics 91, 204, 222, 265, 267, 273, 322 gift 19, 53, 64, 79, 93, 105, 114, 155, 179f., 182, 218, 221, 227, 230–232, 261, 284f., 314f., 320 gloria 287, 327 Glyceranus 45 goat 14, 16, 23, 30, 57, 60f., 70f., 93, 95, 97, 99, 103, 107, 118, 124, 137, 183, 194, 284 goatskin 17, 96, 99 Golden Age 3, 41, 45, 64, 143f., 173, 242–244, 257, 264, 269, 279 grape 16, 24, 29, 72, 202 green cabinet 20, 45, 50f., 112, 151, 154, 173, 181, 184, 205, 212f., 215, 219, 221, 224, 228, 240, 245, 248, 254, 261, 270, 283, 302, 321, 334, 337 guest genre 5 Gyges 60 Hagen 44 hare 17, 314f. Haupt 47 heal 111, 151, 162, 191, 291, 305 heat 24, 29, 32, 39, 57, 62, 205, 214, 240, 276, 331–334 heaven 89, 131, 166, 168, 171, 174, 262, 269 heifer 16f., 94, 123, 126, 149, 162, 172, 196, 230, 308, 330 Helikon 72, 295 Hellenistic learning 56, 70, 79 Heraclitus epigram 203 Hercules 79, 92, 96f., 111 herdsman 3f., 7, 10–13, 16–27, 31, 45, 51–54, 64, 67, 70, 87, 93–96, 99, 101–104, 113, 115, 117, 122, 124f., 130–133, 135, 139, 142–145, 153–159, 165–168, 172f., 175, 177, 179–185, 187f., 191, 194f., 199, 201, 209, 213, 215, 218, 223, 226–229, 233, 235, 247, 250–253, 255, 260, 274, 281, 299, 302, 305, 321–325, 328, 332, 337 Hermesianax 25f.

377

Hesiod 3, 15, 72, 84, 154, 175, 182f., 187, 192, 221 hexameter 3, 5, 21, 24f., 53, 95, 163, 218, 222 hibiscum 30, 34, 253f., 306 Homeric 12, 15, 80, 92, 130, 188 honey 17, 66f., 74f., 84, 131, 175, 218 Horace 50, 56, 59f., 63, 68f., 76, 78f., 81, 103, 113, 176 horizon of expectation 6f., 51 horridus 58, 63, 75f. horse 30, 118, 169f. host genre 5 hound 23, 136, 149 hunting 18, 25, 31, 104, 115 husbandry 223 Hyacinthus 23, 112, 121 Hyblean 66f., 74f., 84, 256 hybrid 6 Hylas 97 hymn 12, 41, 57, 59, 67, 77f., 80, 83f., 106, 175, 220, 246, 253, 263, 292 iambic 79, 137, 268 Iberian landscape 252 ice 57–60, 62, 333 Idas 43, 214–217, 219, 221–223, 225–236, 238, 298, 302–307, 309, 311–314, 319, 328 ideal / model reader 1, 4, 7 idyllic 16, 27, 52, 93, 99, 117f., 130f., 134, 140f., 147, 153, 159f., 164f., 167, 172, 177, 187–190, 193f., 200, 204–206, 241, 243 ignis 78, 114, 147, 323, 326 immortality 69, 196 impartiality 53 imperial patronage 41, 272 incompetence 107, 191, 196, 248 ingens 80 inscribing 40, 121, 156, 166, 180f., 268, 322, 324 invert 7f., 10, 25, 40, 43, 46, 99, 108, 147f., 163, 186, 201, 205, 221f., 234, 240, 246, 264, 272–275, 279, 287, 306f., 335

378

General Index

invidia 56, 64, 67, 78, 86, 101, 104, 106, 119, 141, 272 invocation 19, 54, 111f., 259–261, 288f., 304, 314 Iollas 97, 103, 116, 221, 256, 315, 323–326, 330, 332f., 337f. Iulia gens 171 iuvenis 172, 174, 176f., 202, 274 ivy 14, 16, 24, 30, 64, 66f., 79, 89f., 127, 159, 254f., 306 Jupiter 111f., 121, 192, 259–263, 279, 288–291 kid 71, 108, 184, 204, 274 kiss 101, 113, 229f., 308 Kouretes 262f. labour 3, 34, 90, 187, 205 Lacon 12, 87, 96f., 99, 112, 114, 118 Ladas 45, 280–282, 284–288, 290–293, 296 lament 14, 19, 22f., 32, 49, 119, 136, 156, 158, 162, 218 Lares 40, 229 laurel 29, 112, 127, 254f., 261, 311f., 336 Leander 59 legalistic 10, 106, 123, 133f., 150, 186f., 193, 207, 266, 278, 285 lena 101 lentus 32, 71, 89, 90, 160, 200, 252, 262, 268, 307, 319, 334 Lesbia 69, 75, 79, 166 levis 43, 46, 77, 132, 153, 221f., 249, 284, 296 lex templi 168 Liberalia 170, 267 libertas 134, 176, 187, 251 lion 17, 30, 61, 162f., 170, 333f. liquidus 270f., 317, 332 literary competence 6 liveliness 219 locus amoenus 9f., 16, 24, 29, 40, 45, 49, 99, 117, 155, 164, 188, 190, 193, 214, 227, 235, 240–242, 261, 268, 278, 325, 332f.

long life / deification 71, 168f., 171, 174, 176f., 181, 206, 269f. longus 5, 60, 75–77, 86, 203f., 329 loss / death 19, 23, 43, 49, 60f., 68, 71, 79, 85, 94, 109, 119, 136, 142, 156–159, 161–165, 169, 172f., 178, 181, 189, 192f., 203–206, 223, 250, 252, 259, 264f., 286, 300, 302, 305f., 310f., 328–330 loud 242, 251, 263, 265 loyalty 248 Lucan 44–46, 256f., 281, 289, 294 Lucretius 32f., 72–74, 83, 85f., 149f., 164, 174f., 179f., 203f., 244, 289 ludo 33f., 62, 208, 211, 249, 268, 282 Lyce 60 Lycidas 12f., 15, 22, 25, 40, 94, 96, 155, 159, 173, 176f., 180, 184f., 188, 191–195, 197–202, 204–213, 226, 230, 233f., 257, 301, 306, 308–311, 315, 321, 323, 326–330, 332–334, 336f. Lycoris 58f., 133, 301, 333 Lycos 102 Lycotas 41, 270, 314 Lyde 77, 102 Lygdamus 101, 103 lyric poetry 59, 61, 63, 68f., 113, 115, 133, 135, 176, 254f., 268, 309, 314 Machon 62 Maecenas / maecenaticm 68, 251, 273 Maevius 56, 105 magic 103, 144–150, 336f. magnus 129, 246, 258 malus 56, 65, 78, 106, 141, 149, 226 Mantua 121, 189, 195, 205, 294 marginal 28, 157, 195, 222, 228 Marius 170 Marsyas 218 mater dolorosa 158, 170 materialistic 94, 250f., 272, 284 material reward 272 Medea 127, 140, 333 Meliboeus 28, 46f., 49, 54f., 70, 141, 163f., 173, 184f., 190, 205, 208,

General Index

210–212, 218, 224, 228, 239–241, 245–247, 252–259, 270f., 273–276, 279, 325 memory 91, 94, 184, 193, 195, 199–201, 203, 257, 333 Menalcas 20, 25f., 53, 58, 63, 70f., 87–99, 104–108, 112–116, 120–124, 141, 153–156, 165, 167–169, 171–174, 176–185, 187, 191, 193, 195–197, 199, 201f., 206f., 215, 221, 254, 264f., 284, 332, 334 menial activities 17, 306 merae bucolicae 39, 213 metal working 90 meta-poetic 2, 4, 9, 25, 27, 32, 37, 43, 46, 48, 59, 62f., 84, 90, 106, 120, 121f., 129–132, 138, 146f., 152, 161, 173, 175, 179, 183, 213, 218, 224, 232f., 236, 239, 241, 274, 279–282, 285, 292, 296, 300, 302, 307, 320, 324–326, 332, 334, 337 metre 2, 6, 21, 24–26, 28, 37, 47, 51, 55, 64f., 73, 77, 91, 94f., 130, 132, 137f., 163, 174, 176, 185, 188, 199f., 207f., 238, 295, 298 Micon 42, 47, 77, 82, 95, 106, 141 Midas 280–284, 286, 288 midday 57 Milanion 61, 115 miles 58f., 98, 100, 184, 187, 193, 228 military 127, 261, 285, 327 milk 18, 22, 24, 31, 39, 49, 58, 88, 93, 95f., 99, 118, 124, 168, 224, 230–232, 250, 264, 278, 306, 308 Milon 96, 100, 119, 311 mime 88, 102, 108, 110, 118, 144f., 250, 310, 336 Mimnermus 67, 91 Minerva 218, 312 minus usitatum 74, 77, 79 Mnassylos 83, 155 Mnasyllus 213 mode 5f., 35, 132, 215, 254, 258, 263, 321, 324, 327 modification 5, 9, 49, 138, 239, 246, 283, 299

379

Moeris 61, 150, 173, 184–186, 188–208, 210–212, 243, 331, 333 mollis 57, 73, 77f., 86, 91, 105, 131, 140, 146, 161, 188, 233, 299, 307 Mopsus 63, 103, 133, 136, 153–160, 162–173, 176–183, 188, 196, 206, 221, 230, 234, 264f., 281, 315, 321, 323, 326, 328–334, 336f. mora 220f. morituri mandata 165 Moschus 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 102, 242, 299, 334f., 339 [Moschus] 4, 20–23, 25, 119, 170, 172, 217–219, 285, 305, 328 mountain 15f., 23f., 30, 39, 72, 135, 142, 163, 175, 187, 272 mulier irata 116f. Muse 15, 18, 23, 26, 43, 67–70, 72, 77, 79, 84–86, 104f., 111f., 125, 140, 145, 155, 157, 161, 166, 187, 193, 197f., 221–224, 247, 249f., 253, 274, 282, 286, 292f., 295, 303, 313 music 5, 16, 26, 31, 40, 52, 54, 60, 62, 70, 89, 97, 107, 136, 143f., 147, 172, 175, 178, 218, 228, 230, 236, 249, 253, 257, 259, 267f., 284, 289, 294, 298, 300, 303, 308, 318, 320, 324 musical organs 39, 48 music restored 268 Myrson 22, 58 myrtle 29, 79, 189, 261, 311f. Mystes 45, 242 Naias 257, 303f. narrative transition 53 Nausistrata 116 Neaera 101, 103 Nemesianus 4, 10, 35, 39, 46–50, 53, 140, 144, 216, 234, 236, 297–300, 302f., 305–309, 311–322, 324, 326, 328–331, 333, 335, 337, 339 nemus 136, 226, 282, 322 neoteric 8–10, 32–34, 43f., 50f., 56–64, 66–70, 72–86, 89–93, 104–107, 117–120, 122f., 125f., 129, 131f., 135, 137–142, 144,

380

General Index

146f., 149–151, 153, 160–162, 166–168, 173–176, 181, 183, 190, 192f., 196, 198–200, 203f., 219–221, 225f., 229, 233, 238–240, 245, 248f., 252, 256, 268, 271f., 281f., 284, 291f., 296, 299f., 307, 309, 320, 334 Neoteric Holy Trinity 69 Nero 10, 36–38, 40, 42–45, 242f., 245f., 248, 251–256, 260f., 263, 266f., 269, 273, 278–283, 286f., 289–292, 294–296 new pastoral 28, 176–178, 182f., 225, 236, 263, 325 new poetry 14, 122, 144, 173 nightfall 11, 18, 40, 49, 59f., 131, 171, 201, 205, 212, 233, 236, 310, 331 Nikias 200, 301 non-bucolic / pastoral 7, 10, 21, 26, 102, 104, 112, 118, 131, 133, 136f., 141f., 148, 151, 181, 190, 193, 196, 205, 209, 215, 219, 235, 244, 247, 271, 283, 294, 299, 308–311, 328f., 332, 336 noon 18, 57f., 332 notus 166, 224, 241, 325 nugae 104 Numerianus 37, 46 Nyctilus 47, 52, 213 Nymphs 18, 22f., 40, 48, 66, 69, 71, 77, 103f., 111f., 134f., 157–159, 165, 168, 172, 182, 187, 193, 198, 218, 222–224, 253, 257, 268, 288, 292f., 301, 303f. Nysa 103, 133–139, 144, 148, 151 oak 16, 23, 29, 118, 165, 217, 241, 257, 261 oath 111, 115 Octavian 33, 126–129, 152, 169, 172, 174, 176, 189, 202f., 206, 274 Odysseus 166 orality 181 order of appearance 220, 288 Ornytus 37, 273, 322, 325 Orpheus 40, 91f., 127, 143, 158, 161 orphic lyre 257

orphic syndrome 29, 40, 191, 214, 257 otium 89, 173f., 176, 312 Ovid 59, 69, 76, 78, 80, 101, 113, 217f., 231, 244, 248, 257f., 271, 275, 278, 281, 308, 315 paean 291f. Palaemon 87, 105, 122f., 193 Pales 40, 48, 71, 159, 223f., 228f., 264f., 312f. Pallas 312 palma 286 Pan 19, 22, 24, 40, 47f., 69, 93, 102, 111f., 126, 137, 141, 145, 155, 159f., 172, 218, 263, 268f., 281, 286, 316 panegyric 8f., 41, 44f., 49, 111, 177f., 196, 198f., 213, 218, 243, 248f., 253, 259, 263–267, 269, 271f., 278–280, 286f. pantheon 10, 18, 157, 223; see also bucolic / pastoral pantheon Parcae 270 Parthenius 50, 61, 83f., 103, 309 parvus 63, 77, 82, 138 Pasiphae 83, 142, 149, 309 passing away 136, 142f., 224, 264, 330 pastoral – about pastoral 50 – accessories 17 – activities 18, 24, 31, 40, 49, 228, 254, 274, 283, 306, 319 – alienation 208, 243 – animals 23, 39, 119 – behaviour 107 – cabinet 216 – clumsiness 284 – code 234, 262, 269, 282, 287, 298, 302 – colour 70, 120, 247 – community 18, 32, 97, 119, 125, 136, 143, 149, 155, 172, 176, 191, 225 – continuity 47, 184, 204, 211 – conversation 22

General Index

– correctness 135, 216, 227, 247, 285, 299, 307, 312, 319 – discourse 135 – dislocation 6, 61, 132, 184f., 188, 190, 201, 207, 216, 242, 251, 285, 320, 333 – disruption 211 – elegy 230 – facade 234, 283 – figure 4, 16, 21, 31, 42, 45, 48, 54, 94, 103, 108, 111, 136, 153, 166, 178, 180, 183, 185, 199, 235, 259, 277, 281, 286, 316 – framing and nomenclature 22 – history 39, 145, 150, 180, 215 – ideal 55, 57, 61, 99, 102, 107, 112, 151, 178, 186, 189, 203, 219, 251, 258, 265, 300 – identity 142, 166, 211, 228, 270, 297 – idyll 4, 26 – landscape 10, 16, 29, 31, 49, 54, 57, 60, 64, 69, 85, 99, 117f., 122, 131, 163, 191, 253, 262 – life 3, 11, 19, 33, 40f., 102f., 163, 202, 233, 254, 316f. – love 24, 40, 49, 58, 61, 87, 135, 139f., 142, 148, 167, 258, 264, 301, 305–308, 312, 331 – musical organs 31, 39, 284 – norm 7, 35, 51, 112, 124, 195, 199, 213, 223, 231, 275, 278, 280, 284–286, 293, 301, 316, 319, 338 – objects 284 – opponent 66 – order 131f., 135, 144, 146, 151f., 172, 187, 251, 260, 272, 275, 283f., 306 – orthodoxy 143, 223, 269, 337 – outlook 15 – pantheon 18f., 22, 24, 32, 45, 66, 68f., 111, 145, 158–160, 172, 218, 223f., 260, 268, 279, 288f., 303, 313f., 316 – pedigree 115, 215 – performer 29, 172, 203, 219, 287, 296

381

– purity 94, 139, 186, 189, 194, 273, 287, 337 – realm 260, 322 – rebirth 173 – renegade 147, 284 – restoration 132 – righteousness 147 – rightness 313 – scene 155 – scenery 24, 190, 214, 332 – society 135, 139 – sounds 16 – space 15, 27, 45, 60, 141, 151, 181, 189f., 193, 198, 204–206, 208, 225, 228, 240, 242, 245, 248, 250, 252, 254, 261f., 267f., 282, 297, 312, 316, 325 – succession 22, 37, 194, 221, 236, 318 – task 103 – tradition 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 48, 60f., 94, 100, 111, 116, 123, 156, 192, 214, 216, 220, 227, 231, 235f., 238f., 241–244, 247f., 253f., 270, 296, 303, 309f., 312, 315, 318–320, 325 – tree 23, 29, 165, 200, 225, 303 – upheaval 185 – value 99, 103, 120, 122, 125, 132f., 152, 162, 191, 227f., 235, 240, 248, 250f., 264–266, 279, 285, 287, 289, 296, 306, 314, 334 – veneer 211, 295 – voice 206, 253 – world 4, 8, 51, 57, 60, 64, 69, 73, 85, 88, 99f., 102f., 107, 111, 117, 119, 122, 124, 134–137, 140, 143, 149, 151, 175, 177, 180, 184, 186f., 191f., 198, 201, 205, 209, 212, 216, 218, 228, 232, 235, 240, 247, 252, 298, 316, 322f. pasture 18, 24, 31, 39, 71, 118, 163, 190, 219, 272, 316 pathetic fallacy 9f., 16, 23f., 28, 40, 49, 60, 162–164, 170, 172, 214, 217f., 257, 305 patience in courting 335 paupertas 43, 250, 272f., 315

382

General Index

peace 174, 243, 260, 263, 267, 270 peculium 100, 134, 187, 251, 266 pederastic 330f. perception 52, 311 Peripatetic 14 pessimism 27, 42, 143, 184, 202, 206f. Phanocles 85 Philinos 96, 101, 167, 330f. Philippi 27, 192 philosophy 289, 291f. Philoxenus 12 Phyllis 79f., 96, 103, 115f., 156, 227, 230, 301, 306, 308, 310f., 315, 323, 326f. piety 228 pigeons 30, 114, 314f. Pindar 63, 80, 176 pine 16, 29, 39, 49, 66, 221, 238, 241, 247, 249, 303 pipe 17, 19, 22, 24, 32, 39, 45, 49, 57, 93, 96, 99, 103f., 107, 137, 141, 153, 172f., 179, 218, 221f., 228, 249, 256, 268, 284f., 287, 295, 303, 313, 321 plane tree 49, 241, 278, 303 plant 19, 23, 29f., 39, 45, 48, 64, 66, 79–81, 112, 160f., 257, 261, 311, 328 planting, watering, lopping, flocks breeding 18, 49, 204, 223, 225, 233f. playing hard to get 19 plough 25, 31, 205, 266f. poeta creator 165, 191, 193 poetic labour 24, 181 poetic slenderness 13, 248, 258 poetological 11, 25, 43, 46, 48, 57, 59, 63, 66, 72, 76f., 80, 84, 86, 89–93, 102, 104–106, 120, 129, 131–133, 153, 155, 161f., 166, 173–176, 183, 190, 196, 217, 219f., 222, 224–226, 231f., 238, 240, 245f., 248f., 252, 254, 256f., 270–274, 279f., 282, 284f., 287, 291, 296, 306f., 320 poetry as a means of deliverance 191

poetry as symptom or antidote to love 22, 234 poetry of few lines 76, 119 politics 8, 27, 41, 43f., 46, 61, 105, 154, 166f., 169, 171, 174, 176–179, 182f., 191, 199, 202–204, 206, 211, 239, 242f., 248, 255, 257, 260f., 263, 266, 268, 271, 274, 279, 286 Pollio 104f., 126f., 129, 152, 169, 247, 273 Polyphemus 4, 11f., 21, 40, 75, 101, 112f., 137, 139, 151, 164, 200f., 215, 230, 301, 308, 313, 328, 331, 333 Pomona 40, 222 Pompeius 170 Pontus 150 poor poet 250 poplar 16, 29, 79, 165, 200, 321, 328 Post-Classical 50, 237f., 241, 244, 275–279 praeceptor amoris 334f., 337 praesens deus 249, 260 Praxinoa 118 prayer 134, 253, 290 priamel 20, 24, 32, 328–330 Priapus 19, 22, 40, 48, 66, 85, 111, 159, 172, 229, 312 pride 71, 230 primus 33, 255f. prize 14, 52f., 87f., 93–95, 107f., 123–125, 153, 213f., 220, 227, 235, 283–286, 293, 296 proem in the middle 33 Proetus 83 profit 99, 250f. programmatic 3, 12–18, 23–26, 28, 32–34, 38f., 41, 48f., 57, 59, 63, 67, 69, 89, 96, 106, 136, 140, 142, 156, 159f., 162–164, 167, 172f., 176, 178, 186, 188–190, 192, 197, 200, 212, 216, 218, 220, 227f., 239f., 252, 254, 256, 262, 268, 273, 292, 306, 322, 325 propemptikon 13, 96

General Index

pseudotheocritean 4, 20, 22f., 25f., 53, 58, 93f., 108, 154, 180, 220, 284, 329 Ptolemy 111, 130, 177, 260 puer delicatus 323, 333 pure 9–11, 21, 51, 90, 93f., 120, 139, 150, 173, 175, 186, 188f., 194, 202–204, 207, 212, 252f., 267, 270, 273, 278f., 287, 298, 320, 337 Pythia 289f. que…que 262 querella 133, 302, 326 queri 133, 302 Quintia 75 rain 59f., 117, 205, 212, 254 rape 299f. reader response 6 realistic 18, 36, 88, 93f., 103, 108, 124, 157, 167, 205, 252 recusatio 2, 125, 128f., 132, 152, 176f., 198, 255, 260 refrain 23, 103, 144, 146, 328, 330 religious 12, 23, 71, 79, 135, 155, 170–172, 183, 207, 226–229, 242, 248, 253, 267, 274, 290f. rendez-vous 305 repertoire 1, 6, 314 reproach 78, 221 rhetoric 10, 62, 119, 124, 142, 185, 207, 307 rhythm 55, 61, 64f., 77, 137, 186, 207 riddle 120–122 rival 15, 58, 70, 77, 87, 100–102, 104, 112, 115, 125, 133, 187, 230, 233, 299, 315, 318, 326, 334 river 23, 59, 62, 84, 118, 126f., 129, 188, 190, 218f., 274, 307, 335f. rock(y) 16, 24, 63, 127, 130, 139, 172, 176, 190, 249 Roman Callimacheanism 33, 43, 51, 69, 79, 83, 155, 221, 325 romantic love 22 rural prosperity 172 rusticitas 3–5, 10, 12, 22, 24, 27, 81f., 93f., 96, 103, 117, 124, 137, 144, 150f., 172, 183, 189, 194, 196,

383

208–212, 218, 222f., 227–230, 232, 242, 244, 247f., 261, 264, 270, 278, 316, 332 sacrifice / offering 19, 58, 71, 77, 82, 105, 142, 155, 168, 171, 175, 224, 227–229, 274, 279 saevus 103, 108, 140, 333 Sapphica puella 196 Satyr 22, 102, 172, 218 schema Cornelianum 69, 77, 189f. scholiast 20, 91 Scylla 84 self-presentation 229, 309 Semele 171 senarius 95 serenade 22, 194f. Servius 27, 34, 52, 55f., 69f., 110–112, 114, 126, 129f., 137, 168–171, 199, 205, 207, 237, 317 Sestianus 62f., 119 setting of the song exchange 52 sexual domination 97 sexual looseness / bisexuality / homosexuality 10, 19, 95–98, 113, 142, 216, 259, 323 shade 16, 18, 29, 32, 39, 45, 49, 54, 57, 99, 117, 131, 165, 193, 204f., 225, 240f., 247, 249, 268, 303, 321, 329, 333 sheep 16, 23, 30, 40, 93, 108, 117f., 120, 142, 223f., 229f., 264, 274, 284 Sicelidas from Samos 197 Sicily 11f., 23, 25, 38, 145, 163, 231, 314 sidus Iulium 197, 202f., 264 silence 70, 199, 219, 242f., 278f. Silenus 83, 155, 172, 223, 257, 325 Silvanus 40, 48, 160, 221f., 313 Simaetha 144 Simichidas 12, 15, 96, 101, 145, 155, 157, 167, 177, 180, 186f., 191, 197f. singing and piping 17 singing match 12f., 18, 45, 51, 53f., 73, 87, 105–107, 122, 125, 144, 184, 213–215, 221, 233f., 259,

384

General Index

280–282, 284, 286, 288, 291, 293, 298, 303, 337 slave 98–100, 110, 134 sleeplessness 60, 201, 310 slender 13, 15, 32, 34, 43, 46, 48, 67, 75, 77f., 105, 140, 155, 161, 166, 175, 190, 203, 221f., 246, 248f., 254, 256–258, 271, 274, 282, 291, 306 small size 15, 63 snake 30, 118–120, 146f., 253, 291, 332, 336 solo performance 11, 18, 31, 190, 194, 201, 212, 247, 331f. song about song 9, 236, 320 song exchange 1, 6–8, 12, 21, 25, 51–53, 127, 131, 144, 182, 184, 194, 204, 206, 213, 233, 239, 247, 259, 262, 275, 283, 286, 293, 296f., 302f., 319, 326, 336f. song exchange pattern 8, 20, 39, 49 stag 17, 30, 77, 136, 170 stepmother 88, 108f. Stoic 105, 289, 291 strawberries 30, 253f. stream 59, 63f., 129, 163, 176, 200, 241, 305 succession 3, 7, 22, 32, 182f., 197, 220–222, 256, 259, 285; see also pastoral succession Suetonius 127, 170f. Suffenus 63, 105, 118 suffering 14, 19, 61, 93, 151, 162f., 309 suicide 97, 142, 151, 327 Sulpicia 116 summer 16, 24, 29, 32, 38f., 57, 167, 204, 214, 231, 331f. swan 17, 30, 67f., 74, 144, 196, 199 sweet 17, 49, 66f., 123, 131, 190, 256, 282, 302, 311 sweetness 15, 24, 39, 75, 92, 167f., 192, 196, 214, 218f., 270, 300, 311 syrinx 13, 167, 200f., 331 tale within a tale 83 Tarentum 231, 241 Telchines 59, 63, 105f., 118, 141, 150

temporality 330f. tenuis 32, 34, 77, 132, 247, 251, 271, 284, 300 teres 131f., 271 textuality 166, 181, 183 Thamyras 45, 280–286, 288, 292–296 Theocritus 2–5, 10–13, 15f., 18–21, 23–34, 38, 47f., 67, 74, 77, 88, 92, 96, 102, 110–115, 119, 138, 142, 144–146, 157, 159, 163f., 166f., 172f., 177, 179, 181, 183, 185–187, 193f., 196, 203, 217, 231, 235, 259, 308, 311, 316f., 329, 339 Theognis 62 thiasos 71, 160, 172 thunder 262, 290f. Thyrsis 12–14, 18, 54–58, 60, 62–78, 80f., 85f., 93, 96, 106, 117, 124, 160, 180, 215, 220, 229, 235f. thyrsus 66, 160f. Timavus 127, 129f. Timetas 47, 50, 236, 307, 318 Tityrus 28, 32f., 37, 41, 47, 50, 100, 134, 141, 143, 145, 157, 164, 172f., 176f., 183–185, 188, 190, 194, 200, 202, 205, 210–212, 221, 224, 236, 240f., 245, 249, 251f., 255f., 260, 262, 268, 270f., 273f., 284, 307, 318f., 325 togata 108 token resistance 113 tomb 121, 166, 170, 205f. ‘top’ 97 topos 3, 108, 113, 122, 143, 154, 157, 165–167, 172, 183, 191, 217, 263, 272, 326, 328, 334f. torrent 63, 176, 219 traditional pastoral 8, 40, 43, 100, 112, 154, 181, 183, 187, 196, 203, 206, 212, 217, 221, 223, 225, 227, 231f., 235, 238, 244, 247, 249–251, 253, 256–259, 261–263, 266f., 270–272, 274, 279, 289, 292, 295–297, 314, 316, 319, 322f., 325, 332f., 337f.

General Index

tragic 8f., 14, 20, 35, 62, 80, 105, 127–130, 132, 140–142, 152, 198, 209, 254, 333, 336 transcend 8f., 27, 90, 158, 238, 244, 249, 267, 269, 271, 289, 296, 323, 325, 338; see also generic transcendence transgression 261 transition 131 tree 16, 18, 23f., 29f., 39f., 48f., 57, 72f., 79, 95, 106, 114, 116f., 130, 141, 143, 154, 156, 165, 180f., 188f., 203, 214, 217, 219f., 224, 227, 236, 238, 241f., 247, 249, 252–254, 261–263, 265f., 268, 277f., 303f., 309, 321f., 324f., 332 triumph 71, 170, 172, 261, 291 Troy 294 umpire 26, 51–54, 66, 70–72, 81, 85–87, 105, 122, 125, 153, 213f., 218, 220, 235f., 259, 280–283 unfriendly landscape 7, 117f. unpastoral 7, 11, 46, 57, 87, 103f., 107, 112, 117, 122f., 131f., 134, 136f., 139–142, 146, 148–151, 167, 173, 190, 193, 198, 200, 204, 209, 215–217, 219f., 225, 230, 235, 239f., 243, 247, 249–251, 253, 258–262, 266f., 270, 278–280, 283, 287–289, 293, 295, 299f., 306f., 309f., 312, 314, 318, 320, 325, 329, 331, 337; see also non-bucolic / pastoral unrequited love 60, 101f., 133, 331 urbanitas 79, 162, 248 uro 226, 237

128–130, 132, 134, 137–139, 144–147, 149, 152–154, 160, 162–164, 167–169, 171, 177–182, 185f., 188f., 193f., 197–200, 203, 206, 209–211, 215, 217, 220–223, 229–231, 235f., 243f., 246, 254–257, 260f., 263, 265–267, 269–271, 273, 275, 281, 283, 290, 292, 294f., 299, 302, 306–308, 310, 312, 316, 318, 320, 324, 332, 337, 339 vilis 76, 86 vine 14, 16, 29, 66, 71f., 78f., 86, 89f., 95, 102f., 106, 141, 154f., 159f., 200, 227, 243, 333 vitta 146, 294f. Volusius 79 Waldeinsamkeit 149, 324 wandering 142, 149, 297, 309f., 324 wealth 19, 100, 230, 307f. weather 18, 57–60, 205, 254 weave 13f., 48, 147, 159, 216, 254, 306f. wedding 135f., 139, 304 wine 14, 62, 66, 71, 168, 173, 311 winter 18, 58–64, 85, 117, 204, 266 wolf 17, 30, 60f., 63, 85, 117, 150, 162, 204 woods 16, 39, 91, 143, 149, 163, 235, 252, 261, 263, 285, 316, 318, 324f. worshipper 71, 160, 265 wrangling 123, 193 writing 156, 181 "suwía 19, 27, 35, 102, 147, 167, 186,

331 boujokiaslòr

Varius 129, 149, 198 Varro 69 Varus 169, 195f., 198, 201, 207 vates 37, 192, 199, 257f. venenum 62f., 118f., 150 Vergil 1f., 4, 6, 8, 10f., 13, 16, 24, 26–29, 31–33, 35–38, 43, 45–48, 50, 55f., 65f., 70, 72, 77f., 81, 85, 87f., 90–92, 94f., 97, 99f., 102, 104, 106–113, 118–121, 123f.,

385

11f., 22f., 45, 49, 51, 214f., 220, 232, 238, 280, 282f., 293, 296, 323 1qyt}ka 25, 335 kept|tgr 32, 67, 72, 77, 132, 138, 146, 246, 274, 282 lacydía 194 paqajkausíhuqom 60, 151, 300, 309 sulp\heia t_m fkym 24, 163, 218 tqacyidía–song 14 xuwqòm 62–65, 118f., 131